My guess is that no one who reads this sight and has done the inspection has found cracks, as soon as someone does we will probably hear about it.

It's reassuring to hear about all the RVs with NO cracks! Keep posting please! :)

800hr RV-4 No cracks found.

RV10
667 hrs
SB completed,no cracks.

Relevance of Models with cracks
 

Dear Scott,

With all due respect I disagree with the holding back of information on what models, what airframe time, how they are flown if known (light aerobatics, aerobatic team, or little old person, notice I did not say lady, back and forth for groceries and church only on Sundays)

I am a 1st time RV-14a builder, and will soon be ready to fly. As with all other builders I have much time, money, energy, mental joy, immense satisfaction, as well as some stress invested into my project.

I would like to have all of the information about what may affect my project as it is available. I believe nothing should be held back from us builders.

Again I ALWAYS respect your opinions your guidance and your advice.

Please reconsider,

Thank you,

Rich

RV10 SB inspection
 

I was able to get the aft side of the inspection done using a boroscope. It is tight but you are able to get in to see the rivets in question without removing the aileron.

My 10 with 250 hours and my 6A with 1500 hours were both crack free

No cracks found. 3,122.4 hobbs hours on RV-6 since first flight.

Spent more time trying to get a good smart phone photo than I did opening, inspecting, and closing.

No cracks
 

RV-8, built 2009, 900hrs. No cracks found

dear scott,

i have mainly three points to make, it's not the first time i struggle with some detailed but important aspects of a Van's SB. sorry if it is a little bit of a rant, but i do appreciate the company putting out SBs (and we are very happy customers / van's campers).


1. the world and your market consists of a bit more than just the u.s. and its particular aviation / regulatory system. so, whereas you may look at kit producers' SBs quite lightly/non-bindingly, this may not be the case elsewhere and (even partial/temporary) non-compliance can land you in hot water / has the potential to undeniably ground an aircraft. so please try to better strike a balance between maximum safety and still being able to operate/remaining in compliance practically.

2. the "before further flight" clause implies an ultra-immediate safety of flight issue, which appears to be actually much more of a longer term / high-time / ageing aircraft concern. let's say i owned a -10 (we have a -7A) and would be on a holiday trip through Europe, such as on a Greek island, planning to be back home only a few days later. Van's would just have significantly ruined my vacation, having to remove and reinstall ailerons abroad, lacking tools and proper work environment for what appears to be an extremely remote risk to my particular airplane. in fact, the risk introduced by messing around primary flight controls under sub-optimal circumstances is probably umpteen times higher. by the description of how this SB came about, chances of actually shedding an aileron in the next hour on a low-time aircraft are practically zero (as the thousands of higher time aircraft with, what must be a huge spread in build quality in the field have proven, as well)
i'm all for safety and distributing info as openly as possible, but if that leads to CYA blanket emergency-AD-like soundbites such as this, nobody gains anything (other than probably the lawyer that advised). at a minimum there should have been a compliance period "within the next 20 hrs" or a relaxation based on operating hours or so. certainly something risk/data driven. even the A380 had wing rib cracks but was kept flying throughout.

3. i also dislike the "backdating" of the SB in the title by multiple months from publication date. this could cause nasty questions during an airworthiness review, having operated after "the date" without having been "compliant".

please take this as a constructive input and into account when producing further SBs (hope not too many pop up)...

kind regards,
Bernie

p.s. AMC (acceptable means of compliance) would also benefit if some things could be a bit more openly formulated / less prescriptive / more suggestive / as examples. the clear instruction to remove paint in SB14-01-31 is such an unpractical if not impossible example.

Rich,
I understand your viewpoint with a brand new airplane that is close to flying, but if I had said that one of the three was an RV-14, would it change what you should /would do?
Probably not. At least it shouldn't.

Van's has been transparent about this discovery (as well as others), and has recommended that everyone watch this location on the rear wing spars.

Keep in mind that after initial inspection, if no cracks are found, recurrent inspection is only required at each yearly condition inspection..... Regardless of hours flown.
That shows that it is not expected that cracks will develop or grow in size quickly.... if they happen at all.

This type of age /cycles related fatigue crack requires a lot of flight hrs to occur so if it makes you feel better I will say that none of the 3 airplanes was an RV-14. Does that mean RV-14's are immune to cracks in this location?
No.
That is why it is included in the SB for doing recurrent inspections.