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

[RV10inOz]

RV10
1200 Tach/1400+ hobbs
External inspection no sign of anything. Annual starts this weekend so inside the borescope goes, but it looks good so far.

Is there any sign of what caused this SB, besides the one set of pics in the SB of course?

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Originally Posted by -goose

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.

Reading all the "no cracks" posts and looking at the number of hours flown provides good data that the liklihood of finding cracks is pretty small.

Data is always valuable even if people find it not interesting.

Oh, no cracks. RV-7A. 283 hours.

[Bill Dicus]

RV-8 @ 52 hours. QB. No cracks. Paul; used 16 meg Lumix. Worked fine.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by -goose

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.

If two people post that they have found cracks, and everyone else is silent, how significant is the problem? Do the other 8998 people have cracks, but are being quiet about it because they are afraid they now have airplanes they can't fly, and can't sell? Or are the other 8998 people crack-free?

The more data you collect, the more accurate your conclusions are.

[1001001]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

If two people post that they have found cracks, and everyone else is silent, how significant is the problem? Do the other 8998 people have cracks, but are being quiet about it because they are afraid they now have airplanes they can't fly, and can't sell? Or are the other 8998 people crack-free?

The more data you collect, the more accurate your conclusions are.

This is one reason why a public poll can be of little use in these situations. Anonymity and blinding is usually helpful when trying to increase response rates for negative results or unpopular views.

[kamikaze]

Originally Posted by BJohnson

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.

What is happening here is great, but only as far as those who are here are concerned. There may be thousands of RV owners still unaware, flying blissfully ignorant, as far as we know.

You are indeed right about the "be careful what you ask for" part ...

But one good way to avoid regulation, is to preempt the need by voluntarily taking action. Hate the FAA all you want, the AD/SB/SL process is quite mature and useful. As is the one about car recalls. So don't wait to be forced to do it, look at the what the world is telling you about people's expectations, and act first. In this case, people expect to be notified of such things actively and promptly. Van's has the best information to do this, so why not? (There may be good answers as to why not, in which case it'd be nice to hear them, I'm thinking some liability fear may be at play?).

Spun the other way around: tomorrow someone crashes and dies, and it's found that the cracks/parts in this SB are at fault. the SB was out, but not actively communicated to anybody, the pilot never heard of it. Are you *sure* a jury of your peers, or a judge who knows nothing about the world of experimental, would NOT find Van's responsible in some way? I'm not so sure ... even if you're in the right, it's a painful process to have to go through (See the current case against Van's re: the RV-10 fatalities related to the fuel system).

[727TT]

Did a inspection today on my 7 and no cracks!

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Sounds to me like some people who built their own airplanes would be happier with a production model.

You built an airplane. YOU should have been inspecting every inch of that airplane anyway, and that includes taking off the inspection panel and sticking your cellphone in there for a look at the rear spar.

So Van's gave you a heads up of a potential problem area. Good for them.

But it was my job to already know condition of every inch of that rear spar.

[PRE911]

Thanks Scott,

I always appreciate your time and your replies.

Best,

[bruceh]

Nothing to see here. Move along. (RV-9A with 252 hours)