New SB issued 6 May 2016 (SB16-03-28)

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by awmuhs

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

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.

[Aggie78]

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

Two points that hopefully address your comments/questions

Even though the compliance requirement is "before next flight", the reality is that cracks being present isn't likely a short term safety of flight issue. Setting this as the compliance requirement is a conservative posture for something that until a lot of airplanes are inspected, is an unknown as far as severity and actual number of airplanes affected.

There is no regulatory requirement for a kit manufacturer to issue SB's, Notifications, etc. for kits / designs that are built and certified in the Experimental category (except for E-LSA), and there is no regulatory requirement for an owner to comply with them if they have been issued (but it is a good idea) so there is no way that not having complied with one that you were not aware of should effect insurance coverage.

If one had been posted on the web site 6 months prior to the date you signed off a condition inspection, there was no indication that you did anything to comply, and then an accident was caused by something related to the SB, then you might have an issue to deal with.

(disclaimer: I am not an insurance agent so you should check with yours to confirm...)

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.

[traynhr]

2010 RV8
340 hrs.
No cracks

[Chino Tom]

2008 RV-8A
425 hours
No cracks

[jeffk]

2003 RV-7
700 hours
no cracks

[Aiki_Aviator]

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.

[Guilhermepilot]

none
RV7A 2015 70H TT

[Guilhermepilot]

NONE!
RV7A 2015 70H TT

[mtnflyer]

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

[jeffkersey]

2010 RV7A, 81 hours. No cracks...