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.

I think on the RV-10 the prescribed inspection on the aft side isn't for rivets, it is to check for cracks along the bend radius of the two hinge bracket flanges.

Scott,

Thanks for the reply.

I very much understand the relative voluntary nature of SB compliance from the FAA's point of view in light of the aircraft's experimental status.

I am much more concerned with "Will my insurer have my back?" if I operated without being in compliance.

So, to find an answer, I did call my agent and posed the question, and the short answer-for me- is that my underwriter (in this instance) would not have denied me coverage.

(Still...I'm glad I'm not on the phone with an adjuster hoping to hear the right answer while staring at a pile of bent aluminum...)

But, she also made the point that every underwriter has different standards-so that what my insurer does may not have relevance on someone who is carried by another company.

So...the best course, obviously, is to fulfill the SB's recommendations in a timely manner.

Where I think Van's has a duty is if a SB is issued that recommends compliance prior to an aircraft's next flight, prudence would dictate that the company make at least a modest effort to contact the affected customers to "get the word out"...vs...what happened in this case.

Thanks,

Rob S.

2010 RV8
340 hrs.
No cracks

2008 RV-8A
425 hours
No cracks

2003 RV-7
700 hours
no cracks

You know what they say..... Opinions are like........
 

I have been reading this thread with quite a lot of concern.

Not for the SB, I think Vans does a great job. And I believe that the company has our best interests at heart. As such the "before next flight" just emphasizes our need to make it an active process and check ASAP. I love it.

I want to say... Thank you Vans for taking the time to think of me.

What I am concerned with is the readiness to blame others for actions that we as a group are responsible for.

I personally believe that the "grape vines" we have are more than adequate to get the SB's out to the respective owners/operators in double time... Especially the ones that actually care about good maintenance practices.

I have had this information come to me via 3 different sources in record time.

Lets just stop and think here about the practicalities of what has occurred:

There are over 7,000 flying RV's, and more than 3 times the amount of kits out there. So that is 21,000 people. I would gather just by statistics, and this is only on the flying ones, that at least 135 people are doing Annual inspections right now, at this moment.

Any one of them SHOULD be reviewing Vans website to confirm the SB's required during inspection and reviewing VAF at the same time for community reference.

We as a community need to keep each other informed (which is happening BTW demonstrated by this thread) and any one of these people can see if the issue has been raised on the forums and post if not.

I personally put my hand up to post an SB if I cannot see the SB has been discussed or posted here.

So please people, please lets stop whining about who has NOT done the right thing, and support those TRYING to do the right thing by us. Lets take some responsibility for getting it done and actively contribute to the benefit of EVERYONE.

Maybe a good idea would be to ASK Vans if they could help this process and post a thread on VAF and note it on their SB's pages. Rather than whinge about them not informing everyone.

In short, lets support our colleagues in this community SUGGEST some options to Vans direct without hitting out in public forums. Lets show unity to the rest of the world.

Now that would definitely help our cause and extended trust with the FAA CASA, and other world authorities.

none
RV7A 2015 70H TT

NONE!
RV7A 2015 70H TT

900 hours and no cracks..... N838bc---- RV7A

No Cracks...
 

2010 RV7A, 81 hours. No cracks...

I had the same thought about my built but unflown wings until I saw these words in the SB -

"NOTE: Completion of the modifications in this service bulletin as a preventative measure (prior to cracks being detected) on wings that have been fully assembled is not recommended."

800 hrs rv-7a no cracks

RV-9A, 3 years, 130 hrs no problems noted, 30m minutes total.

None
 

2013 RV-9a SB, 207 hrs, no cracks, 30 min :D

2001 RV6A, 619 hrs, no cracks, 20 minutes to complete. :)

Cell phone photo app works great!

RV-6A, 470hrs since 2004, no cracks. None expected with the half rib stiffener already riveted to the other side of that bracket. :-)

SB Inspection
 

RV-8A
+1500 hrs
No Cracks

🙂👍🏼

I have a Chevy Volt, and love it.

But if Chevy published a recall notice that said that I should immediately discontinue driving my car until I perform an important safety inspection, I wouldn't think it to be the responsibility of the Chevrolet Fan-Boy Club's website to be the primary disseminator of critical information such as that.

Nor, should I be expected to cruise past Chevrolet's website daily, in a "just in case" looksee effort.

I would expect it from one of two sources (at least here in the USA). Either the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), who in fact has a website specifically addressing recalls) or...the manufacturer itself, either through a press release or contacting the customers directly.

And, that's exactly what happens.

(The FAA, too, has a website that will send you immediate notices of AD's, Service Bulletins, etc that you can program to alert you as well.)

As others had mentioned, if there had been a timeline given with which to come into compliance, I don't believe there would have been as much heartburn. And, as others have also mentioned, some countries aviation authorities have a much more severe regulatory approach towards flying without complying. Finally, there could still be a financial risk towards the owner regarding insurance coverage, depending on each individual insurer.

You really aren't left with much maneuvering room when left with a "before the next flight" directive and standing there considering your options, at least in my world.

If I was running a company and had something critical like this AND I wanted to get it into the hands of the affected people ASAP, VAF is definitely a resource I would use...among many others, including directly reaching out through the database I ALREADY HAVE ON FILE for each customer who has my product. Because, not every owner can be depended upon coming HERE or to Van's website within the period of time I've mandated.

So, what you consider "whining" I consider to be an observation and a request for Van's to consider upgrading the distribution of obvious, time-sensitive safety information such as this SB in a much more robust fashion than how this was handled.

Again...my 2 cents,

Rob S.

SB Inspection
 

RV6
600 hrs since 2007
No cracks found!

I did the same and found no cracks. My RV-10 has just under 200 hours.

RV10
667 hrs
9 years
No cracks found

Ironic
 

That in an EAB environment, where we are blessed with minimal regulatory oversight, that we wistfully look at other highly regulated industries for their efficiency in notification of issues of public interest. We need to be careful for we ask for.

Consider this: Thursday the SB is voluntarily issued, typos, post dated and all. Friday it lands on VAF. By Monday it is old news and we are wondering why we didn't hear of it sooner. And not one single federal agency was involved. I doubt there is another example of any SB being so widely distributed so quickly from any ABC organization.

Lets take a moment to appreciate what is organically happening here compared to the rest of the aviation community.

An important point of the experimental, amateur built category...

Unlike Chevy for their cars, Van's is not the manufacturer. The builder is. This is what gives us freedom in the EAB category to do what we like with our planes. And what allows us to be able to afford them. It is also what places the responsibility on us as builder-owners, or as owners who did not build. If they were held to the same rules or standards that Chevy is, most of us would never be able to afford the product.

While I agree that notice a bit sooner might have been nice, and that a mechanism for communicating to owners would be good, I take them at their word that they full investigated the issue and only issued the SB when they fully understood the issues involved.

r.e. SB16-03-28
 

1993 RV-6A--4th owner.
1622 TT
No Acro
No cracks found

SB 16-03-28 Inspection
 

RV-6
728 Hours
Inspected by taking pictures with I-Phone and visual inspection.
No cracks found.

No cracks
 

RV9A
145 hrs
2014
No cracks

I agree with Ed - where's the value in hearing from the small proportion of hypothetically up to 9000 odd sound aircraft out there who will post "no cracks :)"? It'd be more interesting to read about the (hopefully few) who do find something.

No cracks on my RV4, but it was difficult to see in there.

RV-7A..346 h, 2013, no problems on wing rear spar. PR-ZJC Brasil

Data Reporting
 

No cracks in my RV-4, and as others have said, simple inspection to do...but on the other hand, we know because of some history VAN's has obtained there are some that are cracked. If I'm the guy who finds a crack, I may be reluctant to post on here and not be celebrating with high fives and fist pumps, but rather wondering why the bad luck and do I have a white elephant now. My day job keeps me in the deep bowels of AD's and SB's on heavy aircraft, and how important it is for reporting data to the MFG/designer so fatigue baselines and engineered repairs/mods can correct future and existing problems. I have not seen data linking the known cracks to a particular series, and the affected models as listed in the SB are all that have a similar design. This leads me to believe VANs is doing exactly what should be done, and collecting data while offering a solution to findings...I doubt you will find another kit built aircraft with that kind of support. Because VANs has the repair kits, they will likely get decent reporting.