Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
Adam, Sounds lie the diference between company 1 and 2 is cultural, safety management systems and human factors are slowly changing the way management deal with risk mitigation. Great to see you are seeing the benifits. Cheers Mark From: aussiejuniort...@hotmail.com To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:18:54 +1000 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections That is so TRUE Mike. I made a comment comparing two of the companies that I've worked for in the past just recently while talking about flight training, they were: Comapny 1) Every little thing you did wrong in your training or on a check flight, you would get HAMMERED for. Company 2) Allows me to self-critique myself, as they can see that I know what mistake I've just made. Generally only technique rather than not following SOP's. If it's something that needs a de-brief, they'll certainly do it. However it'd be done in a very productive and non-agressive way, enhancing the learning process. What happens with Company 1, is that pilots start to cover up their actions so they dont get an ass kicking and not much is gained. Comapny 2, a much better learning environment. Nothing much more to say! WPP Pretty obviously nobody did even ONE proper inspection. Why would they organise TWO? Maybe it is time to stop blindly following rules and ticking boxes and start thinking. I know, it hurts. Mike Let ninemsn property help Looking to move somewhere new this winter? _ View photos of singles in your area Click Here http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fdating%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fsearch%2Fsearch%2Easpx%3Fexec%3Dgo%26tp%3Dq%26gc%3D2%26tr%3D1%26lage%3D18%26uage%3D55%26cl%3D14%26sl%3D0%26dist%3D50%26po%3D1%26do%3D2%26trackingid%3D1046138%26r2s%3D1_t=773166090_r=Hotmail_Endtext_m=EXT___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
Andrew, It is a big deal for me because in my forth coming retirement I intend to operate my self launching glider at places where there simply will not be another glider pilot within 200 miles and I do not really want my insurance negated because of this. Where there is another glider pilot handy I shall get another signature if it is convenient and after leaving instructions to my wife that in the event of an accident to sue and sue and sue the second signature person until they have nothing left. I certainly wont sign anyone else's freshly rigged glider for that very reason. And besides most of my 3000 hours gliding at many comps with in my case many outlandings (and thus many de-rigs and rigs) was obtained in the environment without the second signature being necessary. The executive does not want to change its modus operandi, neither do I. Sanders -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Murphy Sent: Friday, 1 May 2009 5:19 AM To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections In my previous job as an Avionics Technician for a large OEM multiple inspections of work carried out was standard practice. We were all professional technicians who took great care in carrying out repairs, inspections and modifications. Part of this professionalism is to accept the fact that on occasion you WILL make a mistake and have the maturity to allow a peer to check over your work. If professional aviation workers can make mistakes and accept having someone looking over tasks they perform on a daily basis, why is it such a big deal for amateur (or even commercial) pilots getting independent inspections on the occasions when a glider is rigged? Rgds Andrew Murphy From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Scott Penrose Sent: Friday, 1 May 2009 10:18 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections On 01/05/2009, at 9:44 AM, rolf a. buelter wrote: David long wrote: I'm content to take complete responsibility for what I do, without passing it on to someone else. Particularly if it's my life on the line, let alone a patient's. David, I'm not entirely convinced by your argument. Firstly policies and procedures address pilots of all backgrounds, not only highly trained and disciplined medical emergency personnel. Secondly, swabs and clamps have been left in body cavities, even by those well trained. It is in fact standard practice for another person in O/R to count instruments pads in and out of the body, independent of the surgeon. Scott ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
Rolf, I think swabs and clamps are different, with large numbers being used. There is a limit to how many controls there are to connect. Doing a proceedure with sequential steps is different to remembering whether one used 58 or 59 swabs. Likewise, two nurses double checking medications has not prevented inadvertent administration of the wrong medication or doses incorrect by orders of magnitude. Dave L On Fri 01/05/09 9:44 AM , rolf a. buelter rbuel...@hotmail.com sent: David long wrote: I'm content to take complete responsibility for what I do, without passing it on to someone else. Particularly if it's my life on the line, let alone a patient's. David, I'm not entirely convinced by your argument. Firstly policies and procedures address pilots of all backgrounds, not only highly trained and disciplined medical emergency personnel. Secondly, swabs and clamps have been left in body cavities, even by those well trained. John Ashford wrote: I would therefore agree that the second control check is not a good preventative measure. John, the hierarchy of risk prevention measures is sound, that does however not preclude administrative measures to be used. I would be very surprised, if not all hot work or confined space entry permits in your work area don't carry at least two signatures, probably three and secondary inspections are prescribed. Best Regards - Rolf - Let ninemsn property search for you. Need a new place to rent, share or buy? [1] Links: -- [1] http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http://ninemsn.domain.com.au/%3Fs%5Fcid%3DFDMedia:NineMSN%5FHotmail%5FTaglineamp;_t=774152450amp;_r=Domain_taglineamp;_m=EXT ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
At 01:19 PM 1/05/2009, you wrote: In my previous job as an Avionics Technician for a large OEM multiple Rgds Andrew Murphy Furthermore Andrew the normal modus operandi for privately owned gliders in much of the world is for the glider to be rigged out of the trailer each day before flying and for it to be derigged and put away every night or at most tied down overnight if the next day is likely to be a flying day. I've done that since 1972. If all you've seen is club operations you may not realise this as club gliders generally go into a club hangar and may not get rigged all that often. If the GFA wants to make rules that prevent or make this operation much more difficult I'd be very happy if the GFA formally declared that it was only for gliding clubs and club owned gliders. It seems to be their mindset anyway as one bloke who tried to register an ultralight 2 seat glider with the GFA found out a while ago. The GFA didn't want that aircraft as it was possible for one or two people to simply open the hangar and go flying. They didn't want anything that might detract from the club and group nature of gliding. I'm sure the manufacturers of self launchers who advertise the independence that their products make possible are just thrilled to bits by this attitude. Some of you may be happy with the current GFA rules as they don't cause you much trouble. I'm sure the exec can dream up something to make your gliding less convenient or more expensive. Or maybe the regulator might one day take its safety responsibilities seriously and cancel all instructor ratings until the instructors meet normal GA instructor standards or suitable equivalents. BTW there's been another bad accident in New Zealand last weekend. 72 year old instructor and 14 year old student. The student was critically injured. I'm not surprised as from the photo the front cockpit of the PW6 is non existent now. Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
2 stories from the UK, both true. 1. An ASW20a is rigged, filled with water and a 750km flight declared. (yes in the UK). The pilot outlands at a different gliding club after dumping water and having flown 500km. The Pilot gets an arerotow home, and at the piont where the pilot moves the flap from -ve to +ve (take off), the glider starts to PIO, the pilot releases and lands ahead, still on the (luckily) large airfield. On inspection the l'hotellier for the tailplane is found to be disconnected but in perfect condition. Obviously, full of water with a large pilot, the pushrod maintained +ve (up) elevator for the 500+km without a problem. The pilot was very experienced and had a lot of hours on type and had not noticed the problem. 2. A pilot rigs and then flies a Carman something or other (early, plastic libelle copy thing) and strangely, releases early. The circuit can best be described as 'ordinary' and the glider lands uneventfully. The aileron l'hotelliers are found to be only resting on the balls without being connected and the pilot complained of 'poor roll control'!? Oddly, the airbrake l'hotelliers are connected correctly. 2 lucky escapes! Personally, I don't feel the need for a second signiture for my own glider that I know well. However, once rigged I visually check the l'hotellier connections through the inspection hatch and try to pull them off the balls. Then I perform a +ve control check with another person. I do get a 2nd sig. for legal reasons. These are the things that can kill ya! switch the brain switch to 'on' when rigging. If the brain is 'off' for whaterver reason, check them again or get another to check them for you. Also, get a rigging routine for your glider and don't let it be disrupted. I also work in health. Mistakes happen but are very rare. The incident reporting system in healthcare is excellent and mandatory. If an incident happens in one hospital/department, it could happen in another. This is why it is reported and reviewed by peers. Reporting an incident in gliding, as in healthcare should not lay blame or critisism to any individual. It is usually the system at fault. Only by reporting problems, can we learn. Jim Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:40:21 +1000 From: oz...@bigpond.net.au To: cathd...@internode.on.net; aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections Dave, Please consider: These procedures have not prevented ALL mistakes certainly. The ones that get by are the ones we hear about and may lead to costly litigation and publicity. What about all the ocasions where the double checking has saved a potential disaster? You never hear about those because they are not newsworthy. In my own experience, the second check after rigging a glider has on several, but not many, occasions led to the discovery of an error that was rectified. And there are some occasions, dating from before the days that such checks were mandatory, where to my direct knowledge, a glider has taken off in a dangerous condition which would have been avoided had a second check been done by a competent person. We will not catch all the mistakes. But we certainly catch enough to make it worth while. As far as independently operating gliders and motor gliders are concerned, where there is no qualified person available for the second check, I do believe an exemption from the requirement should apply. Regards, Roger Browne David Long and Cathy Lincoln wrote: Rolf, I think swabs and clamps are different, with large numbers being used. There is a limit to how many controls there are to connect. Doing a proceedure with sequential steps is different to remembering whether one used 58 or 59 swabs. Likewise, two nurses double checking medications has not prevented inadvertent administration of the wrong medication or doses incorrect by orders of magnitude. Dave L On Fri 01/05/09 9:44 AM , rolf a. buelter rbuel...@hotmail.com sent: David long wrote: I'm content to take complete responsibility for what I do, without passing it on to someone else. Particularly if it's my life on the line, let alone a patient's. David, I'm not entirely convinced by your argument. Firstly policies and procedures address pilots of all backgrounds, not only highly trained and disciplined medical emergency personnel. Secondly, swabs and clamps have been left in body cavities, even by those well trained. John Ashford wrote: I would therefore agree that the second control check is not a good preventative measure. John, the hierarchy of risk prevention measures is sound, that does however not preclude administrative measures to be used. I would be very surprised, if not all hot work or confined space entry permits in your work area don't carry at least two signatures, probably three and secondary inspections are prescribed. Best Regards - Rolf Let ninemsn property search
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
Dave, Please consider: These procedures have not prevented ALL mistakes certainly. The ones that get by are the ones we hear about and may lead to costly litigation and publicity. What about all the ocasions where the double checking has saved a potential disaster? You never hear about those because they are not newsworthy. In my own experience, the second check after rigging a glider has on several, but not many, occasions led to the discovery of an error that was rectified.And there are some occasions, dating from before the days that such checks were mandatory, where to my direct knowledge, a glider has taken off in a dangerous condition which would have been avoided had a second check been done by a competent person. We will not catch all the mistakes. But we certainly catch enough to make it worth while. As far as independently operating gliders and motor gliders are concerned, where there is no qualified person available for the second check, I do believe an exemption from the requirement should apply. Regards, Roger Browne David Long and Cathy Lincoln wrote: Rolf, I think swabs and clamps are different, with large numbers being used. There is a limit to how many controls there are to connect. Doing a proceedure with sequential steps is different to remembering whether one used 58 or 59 swabs. Likewise, two nurses double checking medications has not prevented inadvertent administration of the wrong medication or doses incorrect by orders of magnitude. Dave L *On Fri 01/05/09 9:44 AM , rolf a. buelter rbuel...@hotmail.com sent: * David long wrote: ** I'm content to take complete responsibility for what I do, without passing ** it on to someone else. Particularly if it's my life on the line, let alone ** a patient's. David, I'm not entirely convinced by your argument. Firstly policies and procedures address pilots of all backgrounds, not only highly trained and disciplined medical emergency personnel. Secondly, swabs and clamps have been left in body cavities, even by those well trained. John Ashford wrote: I would therefore agree that the second control check is not a good ** preventative measure. John, the hierarchy of risk prevention measures is sound, that does however not preclude administrative measures to be used. I would be very surprised, if not all hot work or confined space entry permits in your work area don't carry at least two signatures, probably three and secondary inspections are prescribed. Best Regards - Rolf Let ninemsn property search for you. Need a new place to rent, share or buy? http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http://ninemsn.domain.com.au/%3Fs%5Fcid%3DFDMedia:NineMSN%5FHotmail%5FTagline_t=774152450_r=Domain_tagline_m=EXT ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
Perhaps with older gliders it is an issue, mine has automatic connections which
would be really hard to get wrong!
I know of one miss-rigged glider for which two experienced pilots [owners of
type] couldn't find a problem yet one bailed out! The factory didn't believe it
could happen until I showed them in person!
As Jim said, be very careful, but the second signature is a joke in many cases.
Tom
--- On Fri, 1/5/09, james crowhurst jimcrowhu...@hotmail.com wrote:
From: james crowhurst jimcrowhu...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
To: aus soaring aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Received: Friday, 1 May, 2009, 9:52 PM
#yiv1037376106 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1037376106 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
2 stories from the UK, both true.
1. An ASW20a is rigged, filled with water and a 750km flight declared. (yes in
the UK). The pilot outlands at a different gliding club after dumping water and
having flown 500km. The Pilot gets an arerotow home, and at the piont where the
pilot moves the flap from -ve to +ve (take off), the glider starts to PIO, the
pilot releases and lands ahead, still on the (luckily) large airfield. On
inspection the l'hotellier for the tailplane is found to be disconnected but in
perfect condition. Obviously, full of water with a large pilot, the pushrod
maintained +ve (up) elevator for the 500+km without a problem. The pilot was
very experienced and had a lot of hours on type and had not noticed the problem.
2. A pilot rigs and then flies a Carman something or other (early, plastic
libelle copy thing) and strangely, releases early. The circuit can best be
described as 'ordinary' and the glider lands uneventfully. The aileron
l'hotelliers are found to be only resting on the balls without being connected
and the pilot complained of 'poor roll control'!? Oddly, the airbrake
l'hotelliers are connected correctly.
2 lucky escapes!
Personally, I don't feel the need for a second signiture for my own glider that
I know well. However, once rigged I visually check the l'hotellier connections
through the inspection hatch and try to pull them off the balls. Then I perform
a +ve control check with another person. I do get a 2nd sig. for legal reasons.
These are the things that can kill ya! switch the brain switch to 'on' when
rigging. If the brain is 'off' for whaterver reason, check them again or get
another to check them for you.
Also, get a rigging routine for your glider and don't let it be disrupted.
I also work in health. Mistakes happen but are very rare. The
incident reporting system in healthcare is excellent and mandatory. If an
incident happens in one hospital/department, it could happen in another. This
is why it is reported and reviewed by peers. Reporting an incident in gliding,
as in healthcare should not lay blame or critisism to any individual. It is
usually the system at fault. Only by reporting problems, can we learn.
Jim
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:40:21 +1000
From: oz...@bigpond.net.au
To: cathd...@internode.on.net; aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
Dave,
Please consider: These procedures have not prevented ALL mistakes
certainly. The ones that get by are the ones we hear about and may lead to
costly litigation and publicity. What about all the ocasions where the double
checking has saved a potential disaster? You never hear about those because
they are not newsworthy.
In my own experience, the second check after rigging a glider has on several,
but not many, occasions led to the discovery of an error that was rectified.
And there are some occasions, dating from before the days that such checks were
mandatory, where to my direct knowledge, a glider has taken off in a dangerous
condition which would have been avoided had a second check been done by a
competent person.
We will not catch all the mistakes. But we certainly catch enough to make it
worth while. As far as independently operating gliders and motor gliders are
concerned, where there is no qualified person available for the second check, I
do believe an exemption from the requirement should apply.
Regards,
Roger Browne
David Long and Cathy Lincoln wrote:
Rolf,
I think swabs and clamps are different, with large numbers being used. There
is a limit to how many controls there are to connect.
Doing a proceedure with sequential steps is different to remembering whether
one used 58 or 59 swabs.
Likewise, two nurses double checking medications has not prevented inadvertent
administration of the wrong medication or doses incorrect by orders of
magnitude.
Dave L
On Fri 01/05/09 9:44 AM , rolf a. buelter rbuel...@hotmail.com sent:
#yiv1037376106 .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
#yiv1037376106 .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
David long wrote:
I'm content to take
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
At 08:52 PM 1/05/2009, you wrote: 2 stories from the UK, both true. 1. An ASW20a is rigged, filled with water and a 750km flight declared. (yes in the UK). The pilot outlands at a different gliding club after dumping water and having flown 500km. The Pilot gets an arerotow home, and at the piont where the pilot moves the flap from -ve to +ve (take off), the glider starts to PIO, the pilot releases and lands ahead, still on the (luckily) large airfield. On inspection the l'hotellier for the tailplane is found to be disconnected but in perfect condition. Obviously, full of water with a large pilot, the pushrod maintained +ve (up) elevator for the 500+km without a problem. The pilot was very experienced and had a lot of hours on type and had not noticed the problem. 2. A pilot rigs and then flies a Carman something or other (early, plastic libelle copy thing) and strangely, releases early. The circuit can best be described as 'ordinary' and the glider lands uneventfully. The aileron l'hotelliers are found to be only resting on the balls without being connected and the pilot complained of 'poor roll control'!? Oddly, the airbrake l'hotelliers are connected correctly. 2 lucky escapes! Personally, I don't feel the need for a second signiture for my own glider that I know well. However, once rigged I visually check the l'hotellier connections through the inspection hatch and try to pull them off the balls. Then I perform a +ve control check with another person. I do get a 2nd sig. for legal reasons. These are the things that can kill ya! switch the brain switch to 'on' when rigging. If the brain is 'off' for whaterver reason, check them again or get another to check them for you. Also, get a rigging routine for your glider and don't let it be disrupted. I also work in health. Mistakes happen but are very rare. The incident reporting system in healthcare is excellent and mandatory. If an incident happens in one hospital/department, it could happen in another. This is why it is reported and reviewed by peers. Reporting an incident in gliding, as in healthcare should not lay blame or critisism to any individual. It is usually the system at fault. Only by reporting problems, can we learn. Jim Pretty obviously nobody did even ONE proper inspection. Why would they organise TWO? Maybe it is time to stop blindly following rules and ticking boxes and start thinking. I know, it hurts. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
That is so TRUE Mike. I made a comment comparing two of the companies that I've worked for in the past just recently while talking about flight training, they were: Comapny 1) Every little thing you did wrong in your training or on a check flight, you would get HAMMERED for. Company 2) Allows me to self-critique myself, as they can see that I know what mistake I've just made. Generally only technique rather than not following SOP's. If it's something that needs a de-brief, they'll certainly do it. However it'd be done in a very productive and non-agressive way, enhancing the learning process. What happens with Company 1, is that pilots start to cover up their actions so they dont get an ass kicking and not much is gained. Comapny 2, a much better learning environment. Nothing much more to say! WPP Pretty obviously nobody did even ONE proper inspection. Why would they organise TWO? Maybe it is time to stop blindly following rules and ticking boxes and start thinking. I know, it hurts. Mike _ Looking to move somewhere new this winter? Let ninemsn property help http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Edomain%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Fs%5Fcid%3DFDMedia%3ANineMSN%5FHotmail%5FTagline_t=774152450_r=Domain_tagline_m=EXT___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
On 30/04/09 1:56 PM, Mark Rowe justsoar...@hotmail.com wrote: John Roake: His reply hereunder: I have followed the debate on dual inspections with some interest. Can I relate a story: Some 20 years ago, a German pilot decided to emigrate to New Zealand and bought a home on the airfield at a place in the North Island called Pauanui. Absolutely idyllic! Pete (short for Ernst Peter) kept his Ventus in the hangar over which his home had been built. He took the Ventus out one morning and only had to fit the tailplane restraining bolt before he was ready to self launch. The phone rang and his partner rushed out to call him back to answer the call from Germany. Obviously with his mind full of something else, he got in the cockpit of his Ventus, started up the motor and took off. He had not fitted the restraining bolt to the tailplane. The tailplane flew off at 800 feet, the Ventus went into a spiral dive and Pete lost his life in the accident. The question is - ³Would this situation never happen to an Australian, or would Peter still be alive today if a compulsory second inspection had been signed off² JOHN ROAKE EDITOR, GLIDING INTERNATIONAL Mike, I actually agree with most of that, mandatory dual inspection on civil aircraft is the prior reference i was refering to. still i am not sure exactly when it was introduced. RAAF do own gliders and also the RAAF cadets i believe.. On the main point though. Of course if you wish to operate outside of the GFA's current mandatory dual inspection which in principal i agree with, i suggest if there is a reasonable argument for it being not required then an excemption could surely be approved? making it an all operators standard though i do agree with. Some people just have no idea and even another eye may mean the difference between safe or not. I personally always have asked for a dual inspection even without the signature in the book. Newer gliders of course require very little actual rigging these days and like you say, do they actually do a positive control check with full and correct sence?? Daily inspectors are suposed to know this but i have personally seen otherwise quite a lot. All in all dual inspections should improve the probability of a mistake being picked up before the bone hits the dirt. Cheers Mark Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:38:21 +1000 To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections Mark, I didn't know that the RAAF had any gliders. I suspect dual control inspections were invented around the beginning of WW1 shortly after controls went INSIDE the aircraft. Maybe the concept even came from Victorian era steam engineers. Dual control inspections after maintenance when controls are disconnected and reconnected and then covered up by layers of structure and interior furnishings where they cannot be readily inspected before flight every day are a different matter from gliders which are designed to be derigged and stored in trailers and whose control systems are designed to break at specified points and these points be easily inspectable before flight (well mostly anyway - the outer wing control connections on the Nimbus 3DM were always a worry - after rigging you CANNOT inspect them without partially derigging the glider). Which also gets to an interesting point: how many of you actually grab the control rod, fitting etc and give it a wiggle or do you just look at it? Just in case you get the wrong idea, I don't object to doing proper redundant control inspections after rigging. It is easier with some help. My objection is to forcing some other poor sucker to sign on the line or even get him to feel pressure that he ought to help because if you crash and kill yourself he's in the gun. There are also circumstances where routine disconnection of controls at rigging points for scheduled maintenance is required and even there is somebody else there they may not hold a DI rating for gliders. Mid week at some clubs maybe it is only the tuggie and you and he may not hold the DI rating. Same applies to self launchers. I rig the glider, connect the controls and insert the R Pins in any L'Otelliers. Then walk around and check the rest of the things (including that the tailplane is properly attached), then check the control attachments again but leave the hatch off. Then organise the cockpit, then check the control attachments once more and seal the hatch. My neck, my responsibility. Mike . At 02:04 PM 27/04/2009, you wrote: Note; Dual inspections are the single largest improvement to aviation safety ever. And it was first implemented by the RAAF i believe, something to be proud of. Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
A sadly fatal mistake, re the accident in NZ. It needs to be taught and remembered that if a pre-take off or rigging check is interrupted for whatever reason, that the checking sequence needs to be started again from the beginning. So if you are doing a rigging check and are interrupted, start it again. Use a written checklist (you will be less likely to miss something). Having more than one person checking a control circuit is no insurance either. There is the famous instance of a Libelle having its ailerons rigged in the opposite sense after a form 2. True, the aileron actuators are mirror images and can be installed in the opposite wings without difficulty, however; the fault was not detected by the form 2 inspector or the daily inspector or the pilot as part of his pre-take off check (so much for checking control operation in correct sense and direction). The aircraft made it to take off on aerotow, but crashed due to the pilot using correct (but incorrectly acting) control inputs. I also know of a case where a glider has been rigged and independently checked. The controls moved in the correct sense but a positive connection wasn't present because only friction was holding one half of the aileron circuit together. The aircraft flew after a winch launch, fortunately the pilot was able to control the aircraft with one aileron (because the disconnected aileron trailed in the air flow) and rudder for a safe landing. It could've ended much worse. The key point is keeping focussed on the task at hand when it comes to doing a check. As controversial as it seems, use a checklist for mission critical checks (such as rigging checks). Commercial pilots use checklists, they also have the concept of 'sterile cockpit' (i.e. there should be no conversation or activity that is not directly related to the conduct of the flight). Idle chit chat at the launch point whilst someone is in the middle of their pre-take off checks should be discouraged (we are all guilty of that one). When I am about to fly power aircraft, I do my walk around and daily inspection on my own, with no-one looking over my shoulder. I don't let anyone interrupt me, unless there is a good reason. I would then start the walk around again. Mind you, the wings of the aircraft don't get pulled off on a regular basis either. To recap. 1.) If doing a check, don't get interrupted. If you are interrupted, start the checks again. 2.) Consider using a checklist. 3.) Use the concept of 'sterile cockpit' when doing a check. Non essential chit chat should be verboten 4.) Having a second person re-check something for you is a bonus, but not a guarantee that they won't make the same error as you. 5.) Keep your mind on the job. Safe flying Michael ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
At 04:33 PM 30/04/2009, you wrote: On 30/04/09 1:56 PM, Mark Rowe justsoar...@hotmail.com wrote: John Roake: His reply hereunder: I have followed the debate on dual inspections with some interest. John, I have a sister in law who owns a house at Pauanui. (Check out where the airstrip is on Google Earth) I also counted Ernst Peter as a friend having competed against him and met him for the last time at the German Nationals in 1988. (If you win a Nationals, were born in Germany and have a German name you get a lot of respect from German glider pilots) It is always possible to relate a story about an accident where somebody forgot to do something and somebody else may have picked up the problem before the disaster. Is this a case for banning single seat aircraft or flying solo? I'm sure many flying accidents could have been prevented if a second pilot had passed judgement on a course of action before it was taken. With powered aircraft there are a number of things that can kill you that are left to the sole person doing the pre flight inspection. Checking the oil level, doing up the filler cap properly, checking the fuel level and for presence of water, selecting the tank with fuel in it etc. There's nothing special about checking a glider for correct rigging and connection of controls after rigging. The lesson from Ernst Peter's accident is DO NOT GET DISTRACTED. IF INTERRUPTED, BACK UP AND BEGIN THE CHECKLIST FROM THE BEGINNING. Now I've got a little story which I have related before. I knew all the participants in this very well. A Libelle had an annual inspection and some work was done on the skew drives of the ailerons. The form 2 inspector gave the aircraft to the pilot who was to fly it in a contest (he died not that long afterwards in a two seat Pitts and was one of my instructors). The pilot took it to the gliding club and rigged it and presumably did the Daily Inspection. As he wasn't all that current somebody decided he was not qualified to do the test flight, so another friend of mine was called over and asked to do it. He got in the glider and the tug began the takeoff roll. The wing dropped and the pilot was unable to raise it. At about lift off speed the pilot pulled the release but the glider basically cartwheeled around the dropped wing and was written off. The pilot sitting in the wreckage (fortunately he was only badly shaken) said the ailerons don't work. At least 2 others grabbed the stick and said see they do. The third bloke said yes but in reverse and he was right. So we have the Annual inspector, the bloke who rigged and DI'd it, the pilot who should have done a proper pre-flight check (which includes controls free and operate in the correct sense) and at least two other pilots who missed this. The good outcome was that the possibility that the Glasflugel aileron drives could be mixed up so that the ailerons could operate in reverse received some publicity. Nothing was done about people doing proper pre flights and checking the controls properly before getting in the cockpit. Much the same accident happened again about 15 years later in Victoria. Now for the little kicker, John. About 12 years ago I was at Matamata and waiting in line seated in the PW5 as there has been a lot of talk about this and I thought I ought to fly one as the opportunity arose. In front of me was a Libelle. The glider began rolling on aerotow, the wing dropped, the pilot released before going too fast. he was pushed back and tried again. This time the glider was travelling a little faster when the pilot released. At this point I was unstrapping and fortunately the pilot decided to have a think about things before having another go. I walked up to him and asked if the glider had just come out of maintenance. Yes it had just had a complete overhaul. I told him that I thought I knew what the problem was, opened the canopy and demonstrated that the ailerons worked in reverse. Maybe he'd have picked this up on his next try or maybe the thing would have wound up as a pile of wreckage or worse. Now the people at Glasflugel had obviously never heard of Murphy's Law as it would be possible to design the control system so that it didn't matter which wing the drives went in to. Or make them sufficiently different in size so that one just doesn't fit. I'm reluctant to call them on this one. Likewise a small change to the Ventus tailplane fitting would make it very obvious from even half a wingspan away that the tailplane wasn't locked on. I'm reluctant to call them on this too. Regretfully I'm forced to conclude that Ernst Peter died because he and he alone failed to do a proper pre-flight. His glider, his responsibility, his life. Aviation is like that. As for having a second person who was holder of a DI rating sign off before Ernst could fly, that probably wasn't available. If it was a requirement, he'd likely have ignored
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
As regards to doing maintenance on aircraft, regardless of make, maybe dont leave things up to your memory, mark and label stuff as you pull it apart, or if what you are doing is beyond what you can do, get someone else to do it for you.. just a thought. JR - Original Message - From: Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections At 04:33 PM 30/04/2009, you wrote: On 30/04/09 1:56 PM, Mark Rowe justsoar...@hotmail.com wrote: John Roake: His reply hereunder: I have followed the debate on dual inspections with some interest. John, I have a sister in law who owns a house at Pauanui. (Check out where the airstrip is on Google Earth) I also counted Ernst Peter as a friend having competed against him and met him for the last time at the German Nationals in 1988. (If you win a Nationals, were born in Germany and have a German name you get a lot of respect from German glider pilots) It is always possible to relate a story about an accident where somebody forgot to do something and somebody else may have picked up the problem before the disaster. Is this a case for banning single seat aircraft or flying solo? I'm sure many flying accidents could have been prevented if a second pilot had passed judgement on a course of action before it was taken. With powered aircraft there are a number of things that can kill you that are left to the sole person doing the pre flight inspection. Checking the oil level, doing up the filler cap properly, checking the fuel level and for presence of water, selecting the tank with fuel in it etc. There's nothing special about checking a glider for correct rigging and connection of controls after rigging. The lesson from Ernst Peter's accident is DO NOT GET DISTRACTED. IF INTERRUPTED, BACK UP AND BEGIN THE CHECKLIST FROM THE BEGINNING. Now I've got a little story which I have related before. I knew all the participants in this very well. A Libelle had an annual inspection and some work was done on the skew drives of the ailerons. The form 2 inspector gave the aircraft to the pilot who was to fly it in a contest (he died not that long afterwards in a two seat Pitts and was one of my instructors). The pilot took it to the gliding club and rigged it and presumably did the Daily Inspection. As he wasn't all that current somebody decided he was not qualified to do the test flight, so another friend of mine was called over and asked to do it. He got in the glider and the tug began the takeoff roll. The wing dropped and the pilot was unable to raise it. At about lift off speed the pilot pulled the release but the glider basically cartwheeled around the dropped wing and was written off. The pilot sitting in the wreckage (fortunately he was only badly shaken) said the ailerons don't work. At least 2 others grabbed the stick and said see they do. The third bloke said yes but in reverse and he was right. So we have the Annual inspector, the bloke who rigged and DI'd it, the pilot who should have done a proper pre-flight check (which includes controls free and operate in the correct sense) and at least two other pilots who missed this. The good outcome was that the possibility that the Glasflugel aileron drives could be mixed up so that the ailerons could operate in reverse received some publicity. Nothing was done about people doing proper pre flights and checking the controls properly before getting in the cockpit. Much the same accident happened again about 15 years later in Victoria. Now for the little kicker, John. About 12 years ago I was at Matamata and waiting in line seated in the PW5 as there has been a lot of talk about this and I thought I ought to fly one as the opportunity arose. In front of me was a Libelle. The glider began rolling on aerotow, the wing dropped, the pilot released before going too fast. he was pushed back and tried again. This time the glider was travelling a little faster when the pilot released. At this point I was unstrapping and fortunately the pilot decided to have a think about things before having another go. I walked up to him and asked if the glider had just come out of maintenance. Yes it had just had a complete overhaul. I told him that I thought I knew what the problem was, opened the canopy and demonstrated that the ailerons worked in reverse. Maybe he'd have picked this up on his next try or maybe the thing would have wound up as a pile of wreckage or worse. Now the people at Glasflugel had obviously never heard of Murphy's Law as it would be possible to design the control system so that it didn't matter which wing the drives went in to. Or make them sufficiently different in size so that one just doesn't fit. I'm reluctant to call them on this one. Likewise a small change
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
You're a pathologist, aren't you? If you're interrupted in an autopsy do you start again? I'm content to take complete responsibility for what I do, without passing it on to someone else. Particularly if it's my life on the line, let alone a patient's. As you say, a second person is no insurance. Do you really start a DI at the beginning again if interrupted? Working in a public hospital Emergency Department I am CONTINUALLY interrupted. One can discipline oneself to make sure that checks and procedures are completed, but sometimes it's not easy. It's an interesting comparison. Dave L -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Texler, Michael Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2009 5:26 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections A sadly fatal mistake, re the accident in NZ. It needs to be taught and remembered that if a pre-take off or rigging check is interrupted for whatever reason, that the checking sequence needs to be started again from the beginning. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
On 01/05/2009, at 9:44 AM, rolf a. buelter wrote: David long wrote: I'm content to take complete responsibility for what I do, without passing it on to someone else. Particularly if it's my life on the line, let alone a patient's. David, I'm not entirely convinced by your argument. Firstly policies and procedures address pilots of all backgrounds, not only highly trained and disciplined medical emergency personnel. Secondly, swabs and clamps have been left in body cavities, even by those well trained. It is in fact standard practice for another person in O/R to count instruments pads in and out of the body, independent of the surgeon. Scott ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
David long wrote: I'm content to take complete responsibility for what I do, without passing it on to someone else. Particularly if it's my life on the line, let alone a patient's. David, I'm not entirely convinced by your argument. Firstly policies and procedures address pilots of all backgrounds, not only highly trained and disciplined medical emergency personnel. Secondly, swabs and clamps have been left in body cavities, even by those well trained. John Ashford wrote: I would therefore agree that the second control check is not a good preventative measure. John, the hierarchy of risk prevention measures is sound, that does however not preclude administrative measures to be used. I would be very surprised, if not all hot work or confined space entry permits in your work area don't carry at least two signatures, probably three and secondary inspections are prescribed. Best Regards - Rolf _ Need a new place to rent, share or buy? Let ninemsn property search for you. http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Edomain%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Fs%5Fcid%3DFDMedia%3ANineMSN%5FHotmail%5FTagline_t=774152450_r=Domain_tagline_m=EXT___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections comparison with hospital practice
You're a pathologist, aren't you? If you're interrupted in an autopsy do you start again? Not quite a valid comparison. No I do not start an autopsy again, because it is not possible to do so. This is where note taking becomes paramount. Again, I do not let anyone interrupt me during an autopsy unless there is a good reason. On the same token, I do not perform two autopsies at once, because the opportunity for mix ups becomes greatly increased. A DI and pre-take off check can be started again. Do you really start a DI at the beginning again if interrupted? Yes. That's why I don't let people interrupt me during a DI unless there is a very good reason. Working in a public hospital Emergency Department I am CONTINUALLY nterrupted. One can discipline oneself to make sure that checks and procedures are completed, but sometimes it's not easy. It's an interesting comparison. This is why we have medical indemnity insurance, because mistakes will happen. In a past life I have worked in Accident and Emergency departments too. It is a very different atmsophere to doing a daily inspection or pre take-off check because you have many tasks happening at once with varying degrees of urgency, with many factors not under your direct control. The risk of mistakes is real and we are trained as professionals to minimise these. One way to minimise mistakes is to keep good notes and to communicate well with your colleagues, staff and the patient and their relatives. However, in a public hospital, hopefully you are surrounded by colleagues and nursing staff (your team) who are hopefully looking out for you in case a slip up occurs. An example of CRM (cockpit resource management) perhaps. If you have done the Early Management of Severe Trauma (EMST) one of the things you are taught is to use all available resources and people to help you. On a DI and pre-take off check, you are often on your own. ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
In my previous job as an Avionics Technician for a large OEM multiple inspections of work carried out was standard practice. We were all professional technicians who took great care in carrying out repairs, inspections and modifications. Part of this professionalism is to accept the fact that on occasion you WILL make a mistake and have the maturity to allow a peer to check over your work. If professional aviation workers can make mistakes and accept having someone looking over tasks they perform on a daily basis, why is it such a big deal for amateur (or even commercial) pilots getting independent inspections on the occasions when a glider is rigged? Rgds Andrew Murphy From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Scott Penrose Sent: Friday, 1 May 2009 10:18 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections On 01/05/2009, at 9:44 AM, rolf a. buelter wrote: David long wrote: I'm content to take complete responsibility for what I do, without passing it on to someone else. Particularly if it's my life on the line, let alone a patient's. David, I'm not entirely convinced by your argument. Firstly policies and procedures address pilots of all backgrounds, not only highly trained and disciplined medical emergency personnel. Secondly, swabs and clamps have been left in body cavities, even by those well trained. It is in fact standard practice for another person in O/R to count instruments pads in and out of the body, independent of the surgeon. Scott ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
Glad that two signatures after rigging are not compulsory in the USA. Otherwise couldn't have flown 500k last week out of a California airport on which the only other people were working beyond a painted red line GA pilots cannot cross! Solo drive, rig, pre-flight inspection, refuel. Self launch. Solo decisions on everything from terrain avoidance below 100' to personal hydration and Oxygen use. And yes, one rigger if it was necessary to pull the handle and use the 3.5:1 L/D glider. Although not a legality, I did practical training for the square chute - it was fun! Jim Mike Borgelt wrote: The FAA issues a blanket waiver against the normal control disconnection/reconnection requirement for gliders in recognition of the special nature of the operation. Next time anybody straps on a parachute, remember there is only ONE rigger's signature on it. 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
At 01:19 PM 1/05/2009, you wrote: In my previous job as an Avionics Technician for a large OEM multiple inspections of work carried out was standard practice. We were all professional technicians who took great care in carrying out repairs, inspections and modifications. Part of this professionalism is to accept the fact that on occasion you WILL make a mistake and have the maturity to allow a peer to check over your work. If professional aviation workers can make mistakes and accept having someone looking over tasks they perform on a daily basis, why is it such a big deal for amateur (or even commercial) pilots getting independent inspections on the occasions when a glider is rigged? Rgds Andrew Murphy Because making it a REQUIREMENT prevents certain operations from happening in full compliance with the rules. Less flying. The advent of self launching motor gliders makes this an issue. See Jim Staniforth's last post. Also when you were at work your employer was carrying the liability. In the gliding case it will be you as an individual who will be relying on the tender mercies of the GFA bulk Liability insurance and the exec. You might want to check the terms of that and its payout history. If people did this I doubt any doctors or other high income earners (or anyone else for that matter) would ever be able to get anyone to check their glider. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
Mike, I actually agree with most of that, mandatory dual inspection on civil aircraft is the prior reference i was refering to. still i am not sure exactly when it was introduced. RAAF do own gliders and also the RAAF cadets i believe.. On the main point though. Of course if you wish to operate outside of the GFA's current mandatory dual inspection which in principal i agree with, i suggest if there is a reasonable argument for it being not required then an excemption could surely be approved? making it an all operators standard though i do agree with. Some people just have no idea and even another eye may mean the difference between safe or not. I personally always have asked for a dual inspection even without the signature in the book. Newer gliders of course require very little actual rigging these days and like you say, do they actually do a positive control check with full and correct sence?? Daily inspectors are suposed to know this but i have personally seen otherwise quite a lot. All in all dual inspections should improve the probability of a mistake being picked up before the bone hits the dirt. Cheers Mark Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:38:21 +1000 To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net From: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections Mark, I didn't know that the RAAF had any gliders. I suspect dual control inspections were invented around the beginning of WW1 shortly after controls went INSIDE the aircraft. Maybe the concept even came from Victorian era steam engineers. Dual control inspections after maintenance when controls are disconnected and reconnected and then covered up by layers of structure and interior furnishings where they cannot be readily inspected before flight every day are a different matter from gliders which are designed to be derigged and stored in trailers and whose control systems are designed to break at specified points and these points be easily inspectable before flight (well mostly anyway - the outer wing control connections on the Nimbus 3DM were always a worry - after rigging you CANNOT inspect them without partially derigging the glider). Which also gets to an interesting point: how many of you actually grab the control rod, fitting etc and give it a wiggle or do you just look at it? Just in case you get the wrong idea, I don't object to doing proper redundant control inspections after rigging. It is easier with some help. My objection is to forcing some other poor sucker to sign on the line or even get him to feel pressure that he ought to help because if you crash and kill yourself he's in the gun. There are also circumstances where routine disconnection of controls at rigging points for scheduled maintenance is required and even there is somebody else there they may not hold a DI rating for gliders. Mid week at some clubs maybe it is only the tuggie and you and he may not hold the DI rating. Same applies to self launchers. I rig the glider, connect the controls and insert the R Pins in any L'Otelliers. Then walk around and check the rest of the things (including that the tailplane is properly attached), then check the control attachments again but leave the hatch off. Then organise the cockpit, then check the control attachments once more and seal the hatch. My neck, my responsibility. Mike . At 02:04 PM 27/04/2009, you wrote: Note; Dual inspections are the single largest improvement to aviation safety ever. And it was first implemented by the RAAF i believe, something to be proud of. Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 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 _ Looking for a fresh way to share photos? Get the new Windows Live Messenger. http://download.live.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
Re: [Aus-soaring] control inspections
Mark, I didn't know that the RAAF had any gliders. I suspect dual control inspections were invented around the beginning of WW1 shortly after controls went INSIDE the aircraft. Maybe the concept even came from Victorian era steam engineers. Dual control inspections after maintenance when controls are disconnected and reconnected and then covered up by layers of structure and interior furnishings where they cannot be readily inspected before flight every day are a different matter from gliders which are designed to be derigged and stored in trailers and whose control systems are designed to break at specified points and these points be easily inspectable before flight (well mostly anyway - the outer wing control connections on the Nimbus 3DM were always a worry - after rigging you CANNOT inspect them without partially derigging the glider). Which also gets to an interesting point: how many of you actually grab the control rod, fitting etc and give it a wiggle or do you just look at it? Just in case you get the wrong idea, I don't object to doing proper redundant control inspections after rigging. It is easier with some help. My objection is to forcing some other poor sucker to sign on the line or even get him to feel pressure that he ought to help because if you crash and kill yourself he's in the gun. There are also circumstances where routine disconnection of controls at rigging points for scheduled maintenance is required and even there is somebody else there they may not hold a DI rating for gliders. Mid week at some clubs maybe it is only the tuggie and you and he may not hold the DI rating. Same applies to self launchers. I rig the glider, connect the controls and insert the R Pins in any L'Otelliers. Then walk around and check the rest of the things (including that the tailplane is properly attached), then check the control attachments again but leave the hatch off. Then organise the cockpit, then check the control attachments once more and seal the hatch. My neck, my responsibility. Mike . At 02:04 PM 27/04/2009, you wrote: Note; Dual inspections are the single largest improvement to aviation safety ever. And it was first implemented by the RAAF i believe, something to be proud of. Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 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
