DG Flugzeugbau GmbH / Passion, Power + Performance

Service Agreement

Cost Of Continued Support For Aircraft Built By The Former
Manufacturers Glaser-Dirks And Rolladen-Schneider

This article several times has been updated. Please be so kind first to read it carefully and completely before you may write any comments to us.  As before, the DG people will do our very best to help owners maintain their sailplanes in flyable condition. Happy customers are our best customers.

Content of the Article:

When DG Flugzeugbau was founded in 1996, we agreed, without question, to continue complete type support for all DG aircraft built to that date.

Since then, the Internet has evolved into a mass-communication medium, enabling pilots from all over the world to post their support questions directly to the original manufacturer and type supporter. This has presented us with a steadily increasing flood of support questions, and as you know, we haveanswered them all.

Channeling the many inquiries and the creation of the technical support forum brought some temporary relief, but this capacity was quickly eaten-up by the exponentially increasing flood of support questions.

The acquisition of the LS types from Rolladen-Schneider aggravated the situation. A transfer of the responsibility for LS-4 and LS-6 technical support to Slovenia unfortunately didn’t work out. AMS turned silent after a short while, and pilots begun calling us again.

Political pressure put on the EASA to balance their budget from 2004 onwards has caused extra bureaucracy and soaring costs for us.

Continued support of the older aircraft types has developed into a substantial financial loss for the company. We performed a detailed cost-analysis early in 2009 which revealed an annual net loss of hundreds of thousands Euros, which had to be absorbed and subsidized by other departments within the company.

This situation cannot continue as is, it would endanger the health of whole company!

There is no question that selling a very expensive new aircraft creates a substantial after-sale support responsibility. We take this for granted; therefore nothing will change for aircraft manufactured by DG Flugzeugbau GmbH since 1996, about 700 in total. (an this support is transferrable, if one of these gliders is subsequently sold!)

Therefore, nothing will change for existing and future aircraft manufactured by DG Flugzeugbau GmbH, after-sales support remains free of charge.

However, how shall we deal with the older aircraft constructed by Glaser-Dirks and Rolladen-Schneider? DG-Flugzeugbau GmbH  may have inherited the lineage but never sold or was compensated for these older aircraft. We therefore have no legal obligation to provide continuing free service. These older Glaser-Dirks and Rolladen-Schneider aircraft are therefore subject  to the following:

 

We are regrettably unable to continue providing free service for aircraft manufactured by Glaser-Dirks and Rolladen Schneider.

However, to assist you to keep your aircraft airworthy and in good condition, we offer you a service agreement for an annual fee. Starting with the year 2010, the following support services for Glaser-Dirks and Rolladen-Schneider aircraft are only available through this service agreement:

We are pleased to announce that in the recent months we have updated all of our manuals to provide you the customer with the latest information concerning the safe and efficient operation of your aircraft. But unfortunately these manuals cannot longer be provided free of charge. The manuals are available exclusivly through a service agreement for the year 2010. Customers with a service agreement beginning not before 2011 will have to purchase the manual later.

A service bulletin states the new regulations concerning these service manuals:
(1) Actual service manuals are necessary for the next annual check or latest March 31st, 2010. Some manuals will not be approved by the authorities at that time. For those the dead line will be extended to June 30th.
(2) New service manuals are valid for one year. In 2011 they must be renewed through an annual update service, which will replace all updated pages and at least the cover page stating the new effective period. If this update service will cost the same or less, or another system will come into effect, will be decided end of 2010. Service manuals are mandatory for the operation of the aircraft.

The annual premium for the service agreement will be 245.00 Euro flat. Owners up to 25 years of age and Aero Clubs get a reduced premium of 195.00 Euro. Where required by law, the adequate VAT or sales tax will be added.

These prices assume owners will enter the service agreement right away and are calculated to provide the best value for the money.

We can imagine that most affected pilots will be startled reading this news. We agree that it is not so easy to accept paying for something that was free for so long time.

However, we think it only fair to ask aircraft owners to contribute their share for covering the service cost of older aircraft, which we support but never earned any revenue on. In our hearts we have strong ties to all glider pilots in the world. But in the interest of these pilots, we cannot continue subsidizing the community out of our own pockets, as we have done for 13 years, and risk the ruin of yet another manufacturer….

The only other alternative to paid service contracts would be to abandon all type responsibility and service for the aircraft built by Glaser-Dirks and Rolladen-Schneider. Obviously we believe that this would be in no one’s interest.

Here you will find the

Form for the Service Agreement.

Please read it carefully, complete all fields and sign it. Send it to us via letter, FAX or e-mail (as PDF document), and please transfer the first premium. This will help us to provide you with continued service without interruption.

Thank you in advance.

Friedel Weber und Holger Back

 

Once more a summarization of the benefits the Service Agreement is giving besides the necessary Type-Support for the aircraft:

Service Contract Benefits

Aircraft

for which a Service Agreement will be mandatory from January 2010 on:

The following aircraft are affected:  

 

DG-100

DG-200

DG-300

DG-400

DG-500

DG-600

DG-800

DG-1000

Serial-No

all

all

all **

all

all **

all

1-84

none

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LS1

LS3

LS4

LS6

LS7

LS8

LS9

LS10

Serial-No

all

all

all

all

all

1-497

all

none

 

**Exceptions:

DG-300 Serial-No: 469,470,472,473,476,477,478-482,484-486,492,497

DG-500 Serial-No: 161,162,165-176,178-193,196-204,206,209,211,213-221,223,225,228-230,232,234-247

Subgroups of an aircraft type are included.
„LS1“ therefore includes LS1a-f and
„DG-100“ also includes DG-101, DG-100 Club etc.

In the meantime DG Flugzeugbau is T/C holder for LS4 and LS6 again, after having made the customer service already in the recent years.

An explanation how to read our Serial Numbers

FAQ

DG SUPPORT CONTRACT - SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS

Who does it affect? 

All Individuals, Syndicates or Clubs owning DG gliders manufactured before 1996 [with certain exceptions – see list for serial numbers above]

 

What does it mean?

As from January 2010, DG Flugzeugbau Gmbh will no longer provide ‘free of charge’ technical support to owners of DG gliders manufactured by the Glaser Dirks company prior to the establishment of the present company [DG Flugzeugbau] and manufactured by Rolladen-Schneider company.

 

What is the background?

When DG Flugzeugbau was founded in 1996, the new company undertook to provide complete type support for any DG glider built up to that date, even though the new company had not benefited financially from the sale of those gliders. For the last 13 years DG Flugzeugbau has continued to provide full support to all DG und LS owners irrespective of the year of manufacture of their glider.

 

Why has this been introduced now?

Providing free technical support to DG gliders manufactured before 1996 has become an increasingly expensive burden on the present company and these costs represent a real threat to its continuing financial health. Some of this burden is a result of the requirements imposed by EASA since 2004 and the rest has resulted form the increasing demands for direct support from the factory by individual owners. As a result, DG Flugzeugbau is unable to continue to financially support the provision of this level of service for these gliders at its own expense.

 

What does DG propose?

DG Flugzeugbau will continue to provide full support for DG gliders manufactured by Glaser Dirks provided that owners of these gliders enter into a ‘Service/Support Agreement’ with the company and agree to pay an annual fee to DG Flugzeugbau to cover the costs of providing and maintaining the same level of customer support that DG has provided on an F.O.C. basis for the last 13 years.

 

What are the costs involved?

An Annual fee of 245 Euros payable to DG Flugzeugbau or its appointed representative [plus VAT where legally required]

 

What does ‘Technical Support’ include?

 

UK: How does McLean Aviation fit into the new arrangement?

As the appointed representative for DG Flugzeugbau in the UK and Eire McLean Aviation, in co-operation with DG, offers all owners of DG gliders affected by the new arrangements the option of participating in the scheme by returning their signed agreements to McLean Aviation. On payment of 245 Euro’s, McLean Aviation will register the glider and its owner[s] with DG Flugzeugbau and will administer the annual renewal of the agreement on behalf of the owner[s].

 

What about Young Owners or Club gliders?

Owners up to 25 years of age and Gliding Clubs will pay a reduced premium of 195.00 Euros. [plus VAT as required]

 

What about DG gliders manufactured since 1996?

All DG gliders manufactured by DG Flugzeugbau since 1996 are, and will continue to be fully supported on a ‘free of charge’ basis. The ‘Support Agreement’ applies only to DG gliders manufactured or sold by the former company ‘Glaser Dirks’ and "Rolladen-Schneider"

 

When do the new conditions come into effect?

January 1st 2010 - latest March 31st, 2010.

 

How long does the Agreement last?

The Agreement is valid for one year and is renewable annually on the 1st of January of each year against payment of the Annual Fee

 

How is the new scheme activated?

By signing a Support Agreement and either returning it directly to DG Flugzeugbau or (in UK) to McLean Aviation together with the Annual Fee.

 

Can the Agreement be cancelled?

The agreement may be cancelled at any time by providing DG Flugzeugbau with 3 months written notice.

 

What happens if the glider is sold or withdrawn from operation? 

In these cases the agreement may be cancelled without notice subject to proof of sale or withdrawal.

 

What changes will occur in January 2010? 

A service bulletin issued at the end of 2009 will define the new regulations for service manuals:

 

What are the consequences of not signing the Support Agreement?

 

What options are really available to DG to solve the problem?


"Type Support" - What does it mean?

Out of the flood of comments received on this topic, I learned that a large number of pilots apparently do not know what ”type support” or “type responsibility” really mean. For us is providing type support part of our daily business, but for you?

Maybe I should have explained you more about “type support” from the very beginning, told you more about the very aviation-specific nature of this process. It is not a service contract, and you won’t find it for normal technical good, not even for cars. So what is it all about?

If someone designs and builds an aircraft, with the intent to mass-produce and sell this aircraft, then that aircraft must be type-certified. The certification document will list the manufacturer as responsible to provide (ongoing) type support. In a nutshell, this means the manufacturer must ensure the continued airworthiness and safety of that aircraft type. Existing aircraft are not necessarily grounded if the type-maintaining organization disappears for any reason. However, if an incident happens due to a design flaw and no type supporter organization exists to develop a remedy to that flaw, all existing aircraft of that type might become grounded permanently.

This means: Active type support is a prerequisite to ensure continued aircraft operation under an existing type certificate.

The EASA provides in its regulations a clear definition of a type supporter’s responsibilities. They can be viewed on the EASA home page (Regulation EU-VO 1702, Part 21).

However, EASA did not define the rights of a type supporter, the "T/C Holder" in particular the right to charge for the type support effort (in contrast to their own well defined fee structure…). But economic aspects of type support is out of scope for EASA, their charter is to ensure aviation safety. And their way of thinking is heavily influenced by the aspects of large-scale commercial aviation. Nobody would be surprised if companies like Airbus cover their type support expenses in the sales price they charge their airline customers.

But back to a T/C holders responsibilities:
Main responsibility is to be present and available to answer questions regarding safety and airworthiness of a particular aircraft type (not individual aircraft, that is the domain of service operations).

He has to collaborate with and support all aeronautical authorities all over the world, wherever aircraft of this type are registered. This collaboration becomes particular labor-intensive when incidents or accidents occur. Particular the American FAA keeps us busy with questions and even requested whole expert reports after accidents. Of course we cannot charge the authorities for this.

EASA has even requirements on the organizational structure of a T/C holder. It has to have at least three independent engineers, which forces small organizations to utilize external contractors. EASA requires certification of the organization itself, together with recurring (expensive) audits. And it require a documented quality management. These are all regulations common to large commercial aircraft manufacturers, but these regulations put a severe burden on small and medium enterprises.

For the pilot is the type supporter the natural contact for all kind of technical questions. The volume of this communication grew exponential, as we reported earlier. Some companies handled this very cool:
They appeared deaf and nobody got any answer. But this is certainly not our style. However, answering all the questions we receive keeps several senior employees pretty busy.

Certainly we cannot write invoices for that. Or should we first listen to a problem description, then tell the customer how much the answer would cost? Even the thought about this is ridiculous!

In addition to pilots we support service companies all over the world with drawings, service instructions and detailed assistance for complex repairs. We have done this free of charge all the time.

Finally, the type supporter has the full responsibility for maintaining the technical soundness and safety of the aircraft type design. This means that worldwide any incident with structural failure has to be reported to the certification authority - EASA in our case - which will request the type supporter to conduct an investigation. If a design flaw caused the structural failure, a solution must be developed to prevent reoccurrence of that failure on any existing aircraft of this type. The type supporter has to create the according service bulletins and airworthiness directives, and has even to pay for their certification.

There is no comparable process in the frequently quoted automotive industry. If a control rod breaks on a 30 years old car, then it is just broken, and nobody cares. A control linkage problem on a 30 years old DG-100 caused the design of a reinforced joint, which had to be installed into any existing aircraft of this 30 years old type. And the type supporter is in charge to organize this global upgrade.

Another responsibility is the creation, maintenance and distribution of all required manuals. Creation is part of the type certification process. But continuous maintenance is equally important. There are always new considerations for the safe operation, which must be passed on to pilots.

In this respect has the EASA regulation a flaw:
Wilhelm Dirks told me several years ago that there is an urged need to revise the old DG and LS manuals, because of many contained errors. You know my engagement for safer glider flying, but at that moment I thought who might fund that work. I couldn’t find someone, so I deferred that work. The lack of an EASA sanctioned type maintenance fee structure had a negative safety impact in that case.

After we decided in August to introduce service contracts with the beginning of 2010, we started to revise these old manuals. Currently the pilot’s operations handbook (POH, Flight Manual) for DG-100 and LS-1 are finished, as well as the service manuals for all other DG and LS aircraft. Five persons worked on these manuals from August to December, scanning thousands of pages, revising text and layout. The new manuals not only look better, they are – hopefully – error-free. This was only possible since the service contracts are funding this kind of activities, and possibly even more.

There are more tasks to be handled by the type supporter, but I will skip here.

If an owner registers his aircraft, then he or she accepts the prevailing regulations of the registering authority and the type certification authority, the EASA in our case. Implicit is the acceptance of the type supporter. It should be obvious that he or she then also accept the respective fraction of type support cost, or?

The question is, can individual cost for a particular aircraft be identified so that one pilot only pays the cost he caused? And how much can we allow a pilot to select what service he or she likes to use?

I hope you guessed the right answer already: none of the above!

The primary cost factor of type support is already in the need of its existence. It is composed from authority fees, calls and mails from pilots, altogether important but non-chargeable services.

One option would be to charge for Service Bulletins by requiring a release certificate.

We tried this with two service bulletins for the DG-100, and we took the liberty to charge some money for it. It spawned massive protests, including verbal assaults. “Street robbery” was even one of the milder expressions…

But let me ask, do we deserve this?
Should we endure the same for each and every future service bulletin?

You can imagine how much we “enjoyed” this….

At this point we recognized there is only one path into the future:

When:

Then:

Complete cost of type support, divided through the number of aircraft, and the resulting fraction charged for every aircraft, with no exception.

And the idea of the Service contract was born….

A few numbers:

It has incredible calculations haunted by the "community" and in a known way I'm writing openly about it, in order to establish transparency:
 

Number of aircraft

All together 4,960 of the affected aircraft units were built. 

Of these, about 4,000 are still flying today, as some are, unfortunately, destroyed, removed from the market or otherwise no longer in operation.

A number of them is flying as an "Experimental" for example In the U.S., Australia etc. and they are more likely not to take our service.

Associations with newly ordered aircraft will receive the Service Agreement for their old airplanes for free.

We all in all expect approximately 3,000 service contracts.
 

Costs of DG Flugzeugbau

In the spring of 2009 with the assistance of our tax advisor we have made  a more accurate cost accounting, to finally know what the type support for old gliders will cost us. The result was shocking - it is by almost 300,000 euros, which are directly attributable to this department.

This is true not only to the 6,000 Euros that we must pay as a T/C holder year after year to the EASA. More expensive are the regular audits and certifications, which every time are accompanied by an employee of the LBA (extra cost of course!). You have surely heard that in recent years, many of the repair shops were closed down, because even these costs could no longer afford.

Curiously, the support of the old gliders simply makes seemingly more effort than the newer aircraft, although the new ones are more complex built like a DG-808C. The reason is that for today's gliders are at least dozens of experts available in the company, while on the other hand for the old aircraft you need to learn many basic questions again.
A full staff is not sufficient to answer all of the regular incoming questions.

Please consider:

If every owner of 4,000 aircraft is asking only one question per year, these are about 20 questions a day. The answers cannot be given within 8 hours.

The identified almost 300,000 euros are still without the inevitable "overhead costs" (rent, energy costs, depreciation, management, etc.). We are therefore based on 350,000 euros per year in total.

With the Service Agreement in the future a number of benefits will be provided free of charge. These are - as mentioned above - the manuals, drawings, 50% rebate of the life extensions, technical communications, etc. With these services, in 2009 we had achieved almost 100,000 euros sales (less than the cost of course!), which are included in future in the service contract. And if so when we will reach 450,000 euros to support the models, we have not earned anything yet.

And of course, the administration of the Service Agreements also will cost something.

 

Pricing:

The target was then that we need to deliver about 3,000 Service Agreements with about nearly 550,000 euros, including the office expenses. Perhaps it is even a small surplus that helps over the years to cover the costs of the past.

And so it came at exactly the definition of the retail price of 245.00 Euro or 195.00 Euro for clubs with deductions for LTB's, received an appropriate and customary discount.

BTW:
The "rebate" for clubs and for young owners is a "social benefit" only. The same as the rebate for students, who are using the railway.

A Personal Remark

Holger Back is my “Media Consultant” - this is what I call him jokingly.  He reads all contributions corrects them if need be, and is co-writer on some of them. But I did not show him this letter. This only expresses my own feelings.  You do not have to read it if you do not wish to.

I am now a  builder of sailplanes for almost 14 years, in this world an extremely rare but very exciting profession.  It filled  me with great satisfaction and it was fun. And it still gives me great satisfaction  to see, a grown man having tears in his eyes when he realizes his life dream on collection of his new plane.
To give joy to others, fills me with joy too..

But for me this joy slowly darkened  because of the continuous negative business results.  There was not a single year since taking over DG Flugzeugbau that I had not to put in my private money. Luckily for DG
Flugzeugbau I am not a poor man and it did not matter to me to literally sink millions of Euros into Bruchsal. Other Glider manufacturers are in the same boat. Many went bankrupt, others are in difficulties. In the aviation industry almost no one makes money.
But this was of no importance to me. I can still support DG Flugzeugbau for many years, The company cannot go bankrupt as long as I stand behind it.

But I will only stand behind it as long as it gives me joy and satisfaction.
But does it still do this?
You judge for yourself.

1.

2 ½ years ago there were problems with the spars of the DG-300.   Elan in Slovenien screwed up in 1983.  With DG Flugzeugbau only established in 1996, it should have been quite obvious that we had absolutely nothing to do with this problem.
But what had I to hear because of this. One could not buy a DG-800 because of the lack of quality control management at DG.  It was said, that we should be responsible for this problem and we should of course (after25 years) repair all these planes etc. at our cost.
Are these people completely mad?!
In the end we proved with breaking tests that the spar was strong enough for 500 pilots to continue safely to fly their DG-300 with the only restriction being a slightly reduced maximum speed.  These tests cost me 30,000 Euros and on top of this I was also verbally abused.
Is this fun?

2.

We know definitely since spring 2009 that cost reduction plans within DG would be of no avail due to the extreme high costs of the technical support for all the models of DG built prior to 1996 and LS prior to 2003.  In August 2009 we enclosed with the Airworthiness Directive (Technical Mitteilung) for the DG-100 a request to compensate us for the cost of this support. Because of this request I was immediately attacked in the internet forum. I have attempted to answer this in a logical way but to no avail. As the forum group suddenly realized that Mr Weber responds, attacks accelerated under the cover of anonymity.

Do I have to accept this?
And do I have to continue to provide this free service to such people.?
Why do I not just quit and go to my holiday house and enjoy a quiet life.?

But, of course, I know that the majority of the DG/LS pilots think differently and would suffer in the circumstances. But at the same time I do not have such a thick skin not to suffer from such accusations.

During a long walk at this time was I able to calm down again, but also developed the idea of the Service Agreement.

3.

As we prepared the annual support contract, I also consulted the LBA.
During our discussion we  came to speak about the safety concern of the LBA regarding the use of the C of G hook for aero towing which still creates many accidents.

Because of this discussion I investigated this myself and found that indeed still too many accidents occurred because of this practice. I therefore suggested in order to improve air safety to make the installation of the nose hook on all gliders a requirement.

Of course one can have different opinions on this subject.
But that today I am accused by some that I only wanted to make money with this suggestion in order to save my company, is a direct attack on my personal integrity. Such idea never came to my mind I only wanted to save lives - Your life. Nothing more!
Does this give me joy?

4.

And what happened in December was the crowning of it all.  That no one was happy about the concept of the new annual support contract was expected.  But that many pilots did not bother to read the  article completely before they went on to attack makes any further discussion impossible.

Extortion, mafia methods, greed, illegal conduct were some of the accusations, towards a man who has spent millions on the technical support of planes, for which he never before received a single Euro.

To Conclude :

No, the loud mouths have not caused the Service Agreement.  There was no way that it could continue as in the past.
The costs must be covered.

But certainly, they have caused the contract to become reality sooner than planned. Without these insulting comments, I most likely would have supported their hobby a while longer.

But after the last reaction I have concluded that :
We will proceed as planned, I cannot see why I should spend my private money any longer on others of which a great number do not know how to behave.

So it is...

A bit of self-criticism

When Service Agreements were developed, we ran into a massive communication problem since we failed to inform our readers in a satisfactory way. This is also the main reason for most of the negative comments we have received or seen on web forums.

The cause was a negative byproduct of today’s ability to spread information extremely fast.  We wrote a letter to the repair shops (German LTB) and requested confidentiality. The information in this letter was not yet ready for nor aimed at the "the general public".  Unfortunately one of the repair shops did not honor our request for confidentiality and forwarded the letter to gliding forums. Extremely few pilots have good insight into what is included in Type Certification support, or can assess whether prices are justified, etc, etc.  

We are not trying to make excuses, however, we feel it is important to offer an explanation.   Transparency is of course important but in this case, someone just acted way too fast.

Meanwhile, I have tried to explain what Type Certification support encompasses, but still want to make it quite clear I am aware of our miscommunication.  I can only ask for your understanding.  I am also aware of the fact that the announcement coinciding with our Christmas greeting sure did not help.

This was certainly not how we had planned it!

We have also repeatedly been criticized that this whole Service Agreement concept came too sudden, almost like a "surprise attack".  This criticism is justified.  I have already outlined the timeline of the events. After months of indications that something was severely wrong with the cost side of our company finances, it became clear in the spring, after some more precise investigations, that we had a genuine problem.  The facts were just stunning and horrifying. 

This by itself would not have caused us to take immediate action.  But then in August when we were trying to recover the cost to produce a “Technical Note” for the DG-100, it led to massive protests and even personal insults to me.

I am more than happy to send my apologies for the situation being what it is – the economic severeness of this matter made me push for a speedy implementation of the remedy. And the first of the year seemed to be a natural time to start implementation.  This is why we tried to get this implemented in a somewhat hectic manner.

Now the situation is clearly one where many "reasonable glider pilots” have suffered from mishandled dissemination of information.

I already wrote that these Service Contracts are inevitable and would have come anyway. But they might not have come as fast or at least might have been implemented in steps. These are just my reflections.  There is no way of knowing how this would have transpired.  I can only ask everyone to try to understand our predicament.

And then there is a point that we so far have not considered because we took it for granted.
It is the allegation or concern:

"Today you ask for 245 Euro, what keeps you from asking 490 Euro tomorrow?"

The answer is quite simple, but it still has to be stated:
"I" or "the senior staff of DG Flugzeugbau" or "the corporate culture of DG" – all say the same, and in simple terms it is: "We just would not do something like that!"

We must, however, cover our costs, and as before, we think that a general fee is the fairest way, since no single person can either order, nor cancel a Type Support.  Everyone simply needs it.  It seems fair, then, that everyone contribute equally.  We would never use this contract as a "license to print money" or abuse it in any other way. This is simply just not the way we deal with Our Customers and/or Our Soaring Pilots.

To confirm this promise I am ready to make the following guarantee which you can copy or save as you see fit:

  • DG Flugzeugbau will increase the cost for these Service Agreement only if such an increase can be adequately explained to everyone as a result of a general cost increase in the market place. 
  • Should the opposite occur (the price for such a Service Agreement after one year is too high in light of the general cost development) the DG Flugzeugbau in the appropriate context will even lower the price.

Hopefully this will clarify the situation and make it easier for everybody to understand the situation. I am truly sorry I did not make it clear enough earlier.

My apologies!

The allegations that our answers and policies are untrue and that we are lying seem never to end.

There is not a single statement on our entire website that is willfully misleading or untrue. All major articles are proofread by several people before they are published. It is very unlikely that there are errors on our website. When something IS wrong on our website or anywhere else and you, our customers, bring this to our attention, it is corrected as soon as possible.

We do not find it productive to further participate in a discussion about our untrue statements and lies.

Regardless of how well I explain the situation there is one claim that remains:

The Service Agreement concept might be a pretty hard pill to swallow, especially for the owners of quite old gliders who already have economic challenges paying to keep flying.

Dear pilots, we fully understand it might not help to hear we understand your situation, but we do feel for you and we certainly do know. However:

Even your plane could most likely not be operated at all if the Type Support no longer is existing. This is not in your interest and is nothing I can change.  Without the Service Agreement, we could no longer provide the service of providing Type Support for these older gliders.

Believe me when I say that I would be really happy
if we could go on without Service Agreements!
However, we cannot!

We are in a true dilemma, or as you might say, “Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place”.

Some of our customers write:


"I will never buy another plane from you.
By this action you will severely and seriously damage the brand name DG and in the end, the damage will be greater than the benefits."

The head of my bank’s credit department says:

"Mr. Weber, the ongoing
losses in Bruchsal (where the DG factory is) are damaging the value and credit rating of the entire Weber Group.

You should close down this company! "

 ... and in between I am responsible for 60 people still working at DG!

Politicians can make popular decisions in such situations.  They can make various clientele groups pay different taxes or run up a debt deferring the payments to coming generations.

Business owners need to make necessary business decisions and they have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

This is one of the differences between a politician and a business owner and I am left with only two alternatives:

1.

  • We listen to those customers who are against Service Agreements and stop the action.
  • In that case, I have to listen to my bank and close down DG, or at least the Type Support of the affected older airplanes.
  • The brand suffers even more, it may even totally lose its value.
  • This would be the "worst case scenario."

2.

  • We continue according to our plan.
  • The company will be consolidated.
  • My bank will also be satisfied (and I don’t risk the rest of the Weber Group).
  • When the storm is over and competitors might have implemented similar actions the customers will eventually also accept this new concept.

 

What should I do?
What should a good manager of a business including 60 employees and their families, do?

 
If you have better ideas please let us know as soon as possible!

 

One last thing:

None of us want to prevent our customers from flying!
No one has to sign up for a Service Contract on Jan 1st 2010 to go on flying. The Technical Note is not yet ready for publication, the deadline is set for March 31st 2010. 

If you have questions or want to order parts, we will not enforce the new policy for the first few months of 2010. We will however ask you, to sign a Service Contract, and when you like to pay the fee later, we will find a solution. If we have signed most Service Contracts by April -, this would also be early enough and good enough.

In the meantime, keep flying and continue to enjoy your airplane!

Looking into the Future

Now that the flood of mails and comments has died down somewhat - and the pre Christmas hustle and bustle is over - we had the chance to do some stock take.

I will refrain from any direct quotes of mails. Everything was contained in them, ranging wild verbal abuse as well to total acceptance of economic  realities with hopeful expectation of continued type support by DG Flugzeugbau and thanks for past  service.

We would like to stress two points:

Due to the announcement of our of our action the gliding fraternity realises for the first time that type support is something real that can not obtained for free. The idea for example:
"The manufacturer has this piece of paper from EASA, he should thus leave me to fly my glider in peace"! That type of thinking was wide spread and is now recognized as naïve. It is now widely accepted that there is much more behind type support and must be paid for.

Secondly owners of affected gliders don't mind so much that type support comes at a cost but feel steam rolled as individuals without any choice but grin and bear it.
One is happy to contribute to cover the cost but would prefer a system which offers a choice and a degree of control. A compulsory type support contract without tangible return is considered unreasonable.

So far so good! What can we learn from the feed back?

In reality the overall reaction wasn't a huge surprise for us, as it was foreseeable, especially after the personal attacks in August.
Together with the angry protest mails however we received many with sensible suggestions. And these we've read very carefully.

It is clear for the year 2010 that we've performed a lot of work, involving many individuals to prepare the urgently needed revisions to manuals. To purchase these at the cost of € 250.-  appears to be acceptable to most pilots.

Therefore initially we will stick to our initial proposal for in such a manner that any pilot will purchases a new manual at the price of  € 245,-  / € 195,- and receives a type support contract with all additional advantages.
As such nothing changes yet, but for the moment we leave the automatic contract extension for 2011 alone.

In practical  terms this means that sometimes autumn 2010 you will receive a proposal from us how to continue. We received a good number of recommendations to that end and we have collated those which were sensible and practical.

One such suggestion was to create a kind of 'club membership'  of the kind:

  • "Platinum" - This type of membership grants the services provided to those who purchase the new manual (cost € 245,-  / € 195,- as advertised)
  • "Gold" - Enquiries will not receive a response, everything else as per above with a commensurate reduction in cost.
  • "Silver" - Type support only! Airworthiness Directives, manuals and everything else will be invoiced additionally.

That would be ONE of a dozend suggestions but you can see already that the combined brain power of of our customers yields interesting results. And we are indeed capable of learning.

Well, here it goes:

DG Flugzeugbau as always remains ready to communicate and tries to listen to the concerns of its customers.
By the same token we can not ignore economic necessities and have to search for compromises. Exactly that we plan to do during the course of the year 2010.

The Problems are the same everywhere:

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/100107hbc.html

and

http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/include/content_view.aspx?id=12013

For your information:

Since a longer period the big manufacturers of motorized aircraft are selling  the maintenance manuals to the repair shops for an extremely high price each year again. Normally the customer does not notice this policy but of course he has to pay the cost with the hourly fees of the repair shop or similar.

This new service policy of the Hawker Beechcraft company, affecting 38,000 old aircraft and coming into force at the same time as our service agreement, has to be seen as an additional fee. Additionally to the maintenance manuals 125$ must be paid for each question, for each draft and even to download a diagram from the internet costs 75$.

So you can see:

The problems are the same everywhere, and they are not only caused by the EASA.


One Comment only

Among all the comments which came to us - negative as well as positive ones - I like to publish only one, because John Fodermaier made a very good summary of the problem.
It was published in the Yahoo User Group:

Dear All

It continues to amaze me that folks keep writing in with such a negative attitude about this subject.  This reminds me of the old adage about seeing the glass either half empty or half full.  Let's look at the full side for a minute.  Owners of sailplanes built before the current DG Flugzeugbau came into existence should be overjoyed that there is ANY avenue for legal, certified service and technical support available for the Glaser-Dirks and Rolladen Schneider models built by companies that no longer exist.
 
Dealing with EASA, LBA, FAA, etc. and keeping current with the regulatory requirements is a HUGE expense.  Thank goodness DG took responsibility for the Type Certificates.  Thank goodness they took on archiving the records, stocking the replacement parts, and doing the continuing engineering and research necessary to keep the TCDS up to date and provide the data for TN's and AD's so that you can keep flying and extending the life of the aircraft.  Thank goodness there is a real person on the end of the phone line when you call for parts or information.
 
None of this are they under any obligation to provide for aircraft that they (DG) did not produce.   All DG is suggesting is a mechanism whereby they break even on the expense to provide the service.  For all the complaining on this forum, I have yet to see anyone post a practical alternative.  Everyone seems to think that continuing service should be provided free to the owner.  How do you suggest that the labor, personnel, equipment, office space, engineering, testing, documentation, etc. be paid for????
 
IMHO, DG and LS sailplanes are the best in the world.  There is another old adage that you only get what you are willing to pay for.  If you want the best, then lets support the folks who are making it possible for us to fly the best.  DG simply cannot loose money on aircraft no longer in production because it will impact their ability to continue current serial production, stay up with new technology and to evolve the current product line.
 
Let's thank Herr Weber for his continuing support.  If there are positive ways to help him support us, let's hear them.  But, let's get over the thought that this is somehow "owed" to us or an "entitlement" that comes with ownership.  It is not...
 
Thanks,
 
John Fodermaier
San Antonio, TX

Whether it be Operation or Maintenance Manuals, TN's, AD's, Service Bulletins, regulation changes, or changes in continuing certification requirements, there is a never ending overhead (cost) to keeping these out-of-production gliders airworthy.  Retrofitting safety improvements to older models (like the Roeger Hook, Piggot Hook, NOAH, etc.) takes engineering (cost) whether you take advantage of them or not.
 
A continuing service agreement is like hull insurance - you can't wait until after you have an accident to take it out.  You can't wait until after you need tech support to take out an agreement because the background work (cost) has already been done.  A continuing service agreement is also like hull insurance in that you don't have to "use it" to get your money's worth out of your investment.  Just the fact that hull insurance and service are there should you bend a wing allows you to fly.  It's nice to know they are there should you need them.  Do the people without accidents (service needs) subsidize those who crash (need service)??  Yes, but none of us can fly without it.
 
I would hope that there is no need for future AD's or TN's, but it is nice to know that DG is working in the background keeping track of service, maintenance, regulatory, and operational problems so that a TN can be issued if necessary and that I can keep flying safely as quilckly as possible.  It is nice to know that they are continually working to improve parts (like the fork for the extension motor) so that they are better, stronger, and safer, or comply with new standards.
 
You can't provide this service for one or two here and there.  For statistical norms and economy of scale, you have to deal with the fleet as a whole.  Anything else is not practical.  We have been spoiled in the past by having a lot of things provided to us.  I see the time coming where you will even have to pay to download AD's for your aircraft, duplicate certificates, etc.  This is the "new normal".  And again, just be thankful that DG is willing to take it on at any price, much less at a "break even" basis.  This service agreement is not designed to make them money, only keep them from going "in the hole" to support products they did not build.  Taking over the Type Certificates does not imply any obligation to support out of production aircraft, MORAL or otherwise...
 
Thank you DG for building the best gliders.  Thank you for continuing to retrofit safety developments (this is at best a "break even" area too).  Thank you for continuing to improve the designs.  Thank you for stocking the parts and being there every time I've needed you.  Thank you for taking on the support of the Glaser-Dirks and LS fleets.  But, most of all, thanks for suffering the slings and arrows of your commitment.
 
Thanks again,
 
John Fodermaier
San Antonio, TX

Mr. Weber,
 
Yes, please use these postings whatever you think will help in what ever way you wish.  I read the rantings going on an on and every so often am compelled to jump in and reply.  You are, of course, correct that it is an answer that they refuse to understand because they refuse to accept it.  They have to blame somebody instead of understanding.
 
I would like to personally thank you again for all that you have done for the Glaser-Dirks and Rolladen Schneider out-of-production sailplanes.  I previously owned both an LS-3 and a DG-400.  I would be first in line for a support agreement for either of those aircraft if I still owned an maintained them.  In fact, there may come a time where the economy may force support agreements for current serial production aircraft.  People just don't understand the huge overhead required to support aircraft in today's economy and regulatory environment - especially when you try to do it in a "first class" manner.  There is no more "free" anything...
 
Thank you also for suffering the insults and innuendos of the ignorant.  You are a better man than I.  Thank you for your patience and calm rhetoric.  And thanks again for building great sailplanes and being the one manufacturer who is truely concerned about safety - even for the sailplanes you did not build...
 
Best regards,
 
John Fodermaier

The situation in Spring 2010

We had finished the revised manuals and submitted them for approval last year, however the review and approval process by EASA and LBA (the European and German aeronautical agencies) takes longer than anticipated. This is not too surprising, after all over 1,000 pages of documentation need to reviewed and approved.

Since we were asked many times, let me summarize the facts and answers below:

  • It is not the purpose of the Service Agreement to sell manuals, but to cover the cost incurring to us by providing Type Support for aircraft we never sold.
  • Type support is legally required for each aircraft; therefore the Service Agreement starts with the beginning of 2010 on equal terms for all aircraft.
  • Type support service is mandatory but costly to provide. It is an illusion to believe that all glider pilots would voluntarily begin to pay for this service now, after they are used to get it for free.
  • Therefore we recognized the need to enforce subscription to the Service Agreement. Some pilots will be mad at us, we know, but we have no other choice.
  • As courtesy we continued to provide service based on the promise to sign the Service Agreement. But we have to stop this after a number of pilots had greatly abused this courtesy.
  • Therefore, without a current Service Agreement, DG will no longer provide service for the affected aircraft. The new manuals with the overdue content revision will be available shortly and are mandatory for all aircraft to ensure currency of the service procedures.
  • The old manuals remain temporarily valid until the new manuals are released. This avoids problems at annual inspections.
  • The service bulletin releasing the new manuals will be formulated accordingly, so that no pilot will get into trouble ore even prevented from flying.
  • However, the 2010 issue of the new manuals will only distributed to pilots holding a valid Service Agreement for the year 2010. Pilots who defer signing the Service Agreement into next year will need to purchase the manuals separately for Euro 250.00 plus applicable tax.
  • Therefore it makes more sense to sign the Service Agreement now, as have done hundreds of pilots, to benefit from uninterrupted comprehensive service from DG Flugzeugbau.


To summarize, delay of the new manuals does not affect the need of a Service Agreement, and it would not be wise to delay signing the Service Agreement into next year.

Validity of the Manuals

the legal situation

 

In some comments - even on the website of the German Aero Club and other foreign clubs - one could read some doubts regarding the validity and the mandatory status of the manuals.

Of course we have clarified this question already last year, but in spite of this we had a special discussion with EASA in Cologne at March 4th, 2010. The members of this meeting were four people af EASA - among these an expert for "rule making" and another one for "Part M", additionally two people of the German "Luftfahrt-Bundesamt" and two of DG Flugzeugbau.

The discussion showed a very pragmatic athmosphere and immediately we could find out that EASA has one single rule only for all its decisions:
All decisions must remain in accordance to the valid laws and the rules of the authority! Nobody has any chance to influence EASA for making anything outside these rules!

Wilhelm Dirks wrote a summary of this discussion. Everybody is invited to read it when there are any doubts.

Validity of Manuals.pdf

So:

There is the necessity always to have the valid manuals available.
This necessity does not need an A/D (Airworthiness Directive),
but it is defined in the rules of  "Part M".

And there it is expressed absolutely clear.

 

Top | Home | Contact | Newsletter | Manuals | Order Information | Spare Parts | Techn. Questions | other Questions