VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV-12/RV-12iS (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=73)
-   -   RV-12: Engine Mounting Cap Screws Inspection (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=65020)

MartySantic 12-01-2010 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonFromTX (Post 489896)
Think of the poor slobs flying around in 12's that are NOT on this forum!

I posted the same a week ago. Van's has always sent an e-mail to the RV-12 owners when an issue has arisen.

I have not received such an e-mail for this VERY important AIRWORTHINESS issue. Van's Aircraft is ON my RV-12 nameplate. Should I not expect more??

Yes, a post is on their website. BUT, an e-mail to all owners would be most appropriate. I am aslo worried about the guy that is flying and really does not monitor VAF or the net.

This has been and will continue to be my only beef with Van's with respect to this issue. Van's should have made the effort to contact all. Sad!!

Will I build another..... Will I recommend the RV-12 to others...........Let's see how this issue comes to conclusion.

DonFromTX 12-01-2010 09:34 PM

I can certainly understand taking a careful look at the whole problem rather than some quick and silly stuff, but some sort of warning would be of no cost to them while they engineered a top notch solution. After all, keeping a bolt from coming loose on an aircraft is not something that has never been solved before.

rgmwa 12-01-2010 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonFromTX (Post 489920)
I can certainly understand taking a careful look at the whole problem rather than some quick and silly stuff, but some sort of warning would be of no cost to them while they engineered a top notch solution. After all, keeping a bolt from coming loose on an aircraft is not something that has never been solved before.

I agree. However if you read the first couple of lines of the Service Notice, it is quite clear that Vans regard checking of these bolts "at regular intervals" as a Rotax maintenance requirement. As they go to some trouble to quote the relevant Rotax Maintenance Manual references, it's probably hard to dispute this.

They have also flagged the seriousness of these bolts coming loose by recommending a check "before further flight". This, together with the modification allowing access to all the bolts for inspection purposes, is probably all they need to do to satisfy their duty of care obligations.

However, I think an initial email to all Rotax purchasers alerting them to the problem, and advising them to check the Service Notice would have been a responsible move, and avoided some of the negative comments that have been expressed here.

I also doubt that they will come up with any recommendations for securing the bolts, as it is clear from the notice that these are regarded by Vans as Rotax bolts, not Van's bolts. If that is the case, then perhaps Rotax will issue something, but Vans are probably not in a position, legally, to go any further at this point. At least, not without input from Rotax.

DonFromTX 12-02-2010 07:36 AM

I understand, that makes sense. Thanks

Geico266 12-02-2010 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgmwa (Post 489943)
I agree. However if you read the first couple of lines of the Service Notice, it is quite clear that Vans regard checking of these bolts "at regular intervals" as a Rotax maintenance requirement. As they go to some trouble to quote the relevant Rotax Maintenance Manual references, it's probably hard to dispute this.

Rotax makes airplane engines, not airplanes. Their engines are installed into airframes. The Rotax Installation manual, Page 35 states the bolts used to secure the engine to the airframe are the responsibility of the airframe manufacturer, that would be Vans Aircraft. Other airframe manufacturers have issued SB's to cover these exact same bolts dating back to 1999. The real question is; Why can't Vans Aircraft step up to the plate and warn their customers of what is clearly an airworthiness issue. Clearly, IMHO this is their responsibility.

clucier 12-02-2010 09:45 AM

(In regards to Verns post on Lockwood)

Vern, if they did not check one of the bolts which is a required item in the 25 hour inspection how did the sign off that they completed the inspection, frankly that is disturbing, they just decide not to check a bolt when it is difficult? If this is true I would never seriously consider using them again, especially since bolts have been found (or rather not) to be missing.

MartySantic 12-02-2010 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clucier (Post 490023)
(In regards to Verns post on Lockwood)

Vern, if they did not check one of the bolts which is a required item in the 25 hour inspection how did the sign off that they completed the inspection, frankly that is disturbing, they just decide not to check a bolt when it is difficult? If this is true I would never seriously consider using them again, especially since bolts have been found (or rather not) to be missing.

You should be asking not Vern, not Lockwood but the company with the highest time RV-12s. Please do not crucify anyone for sharing! Sharing such information may save your arse.

vernhendershott 12-02-2010 11:30 AM

Hi Chris,

The bolt that they could not have checked was fine, for what that is worth, we can all have bad days, perhaps this was one of theirs. The only reason I mentioned it is if they did check the other three, then one fell out in about 10 hours, so if we are to set a reasonable interval to see that the bolts are still tight what should it be? With the data presented on this list I would expect the FAA to issue an AD Note requiring the checking of the bolts every 5 hours if they did AD Notes on experimental aircraft, we are lucky that they do not but if we follow Van's current instructions (install the bolts and split ring lock washer dry to the called out torque) then we should be checking the torque about every five hours. Forgive me if this does not sound like the kind of fun I wanted to have.

I think with blue loctite we should be good with a drop of Torque Seal and a visual inspection at 25 hours for now and if the situation remains stable then perhaps fifty hours which would match up with the oil change interval and it would not be much of an issue.

The above is only one man's thoughts, you should come to your own conclusions and do what you need to, to keep your aircraft safe to fly.

Best regards,
Vern

jte65 12-02-2010 12:16 PM

Have any loosened following previous confirmation they were tight?
 
I asked this question as part of a post within the related thread a few days ago but have not seen any replies so I will ask it again.

Has anyone found a loose bolt following a prior confirmation that they were still fully torqued? In other words, has anyone else definitively checked all of them at say 25 hours and then had them come loose later? Sounds like Vern does not know for sure whether his were checked given that he did not do the check himself. This seems like an important question, as it may suggest that if they do not loosen during the initial 25 hours, perhaps they will not subsequently. Also helps those of us who found ours tight at 25 hours to gauge how frequently we need to recheck them.

Jeff

MartySantic 12-02-2010 12:24 PM

Read back thru this thread. John's (okiejohn) info on page 3 of this thread may be the answer you are looking for. There are a couple of others.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:10 PM.