VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-10
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-16-2010, 07:43 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

A couple of points to consider...

If you look at recent NTSB reports of RV-10 accidents, it is obvious they make a point of evaluating whether a problem with a door might be a mitigating factor in an accident.

AN RV-10 owner or builder is not bound by any regulation to install a modification issued by Van's Aircraft as a Service Bulletin, any more than they are bound to install the indicator light system (which many have not) or built any of the rest of the airplane exactly per the construction manual (which many have not).

The modification was developed because people have failed to properly latch doors before take off (at least one RV-10 pilot has done it twice on the same airplane). This has happened on pilot side doors as well as the passenger side. Doors have also been lost because of incorrect construction. The installation and use of the safety latch expects the doors to have been properly built and installed in the first place.

The safety latch was designed to be as close to 100 % passive as possible. To require no input of a person to have the safety action active other than having pulled the door down to the point that they seem for whatever reason to think the door is latched. To save the situation when someone is just not being a good pilot and paying proper attention (the person that has lost a door twice for example).

If you think you are a pilot that would never take off without a door properly latched (this also implies properly installed and adjusted during construction), then don't install it. You would be the one responsible for providing an explanation of why you didn't install it, if you ever do happen to loose a door.

If you think the safety latch is a poor design, design something else and install that. You have the full latitude to do so for the same reasons you have the latitude to install nothing at all. Keep in mind that you are not even paying anything for the latch kit. It is provided free of charge.
What you do with it us entirely (and legally) up to you.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-16-2010, 08:19 PM
Pat Stewart Pat Stewart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Granbury Texas
Posts: 1,136
Default Doors

Well said,

I am in the process of building my doors and I am curious about doors lost because of improper construction. Can someone provide examples.

Pat Stewart
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-16-2010, 09:17 PM
midwest rv-10's Avatar
midwest rv-10 midwest rv-10 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pleasant Prairie,Wisconsin
Posts: 67
Default center door pin

Visit Greg Hales RV-10 site, he has developed the center pin idea to perfection.
This is where the development of a latch system should be directed. Listed under center door pin on his home page. I think this would be doable no matter what door latches you have. Van's should look at this system.


Don Orrick
N410JA 300 hrs. +
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-16-2010, 10:01 PM
Phil's Avatar
Phil Phil is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 1,658
Default

Well said, Scott...
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-17-2010, 01:28 AM
David Shelton's Avatar
David Shelton David Shelton is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Belvidere, IL
Posts: 169
Default Hinges?

While most of the focus is on the latch... perhaps the real problem is the hinge?

Front-hinged doors are inherently safer. They don't have the nasty habit of departing the airframe and hitting the tail when ajar. If you've flown older Cessnas, you've probably experienced the door opening on account of worn latches. It's no big deal. The door will float open a few inches and remain their until you slam it shut again.

The safety latch looks like the easiest fix but I wonder what it would take to convert to a front-hinged design?

__________________
David Shelton, Aerospace Engineer and Soaring Nut.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-17-2010, 05:57 AM
dav1111 dav1111 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 645
Default Write Van's Aircraft

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottSchmidt View Post
I suggest that all RV-10 builders and flyers with serial numbers write Van's at info@vansaircraft.com
I have done the same and have asked Van's to retract the Service Bulletin and offer the latch as an additional and optional latch just as the indicator lights were offered.
I sent Van's Aircraft the following e-mail:

Dear Van's:

I would respectfully request that you reconsider the RV-10 Door SB to make it a recommended change as opposed to "before next flight" and a mandatory change.

If Section 45A was originally included in the first kits and plans each builder could elect to incorporate the modification of the doors into his build or not as he saw fit. Imposing on all prior builders the requirement that such modification be a mandatory modification and for all flying RV-10's like mine to make it a factory SB "before next flight" is grossly unfair.

Please give this careful consideration.

Very truly yours,

Russ Daves
RV-10 #40044
RV6-A #20302
RV-7 #71990
RV-8 # -81492

I hope it will do some good.
__________________
Russ Daves
Lubbock, TX
Proud to be a Veteran
N710RV - RV-10 Sold
N65RV - RV-6A Sold
N686RV - RV-6A Re-Built, Sold
N742PZ - RV-8 Co-Builder Sold
N-867RV -RV-7 Finish Kit
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-17-2010, 01:40 PM
ScottSchmidt's Avatar
ScottSchmidt ScottSchmidt is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,158
Default We are all saying the same thing!

I believe we are all saying the same thing here which is great.

Let's now just memorialize it as "Optional" from our favorite factory in the world.

The RV community takes SB's that say "before further flight" very seriously as do I, this one just doesn't belong in the same category. It is apparent that the majority of RV-10 planes will not be adding this SB to their aircraft (our own prerogative) which says something about the quality and/or safety and/or design of this SB.

I would be shocked if anyone flew or sold a plane without the previous SB's installed.
I just realized or forgot that Van's has a "Letters and Notices" section. This is where this belongs which is the same location as the door indicator lights.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/notices.htm
__________________
Scott Schmidt
Salt Lake City, UT

RV-10 N104XP (1280 Hours)
RV-12 N321UT (Sold)

Last edited by ScottSchmidt : 01-17-2010 at 01:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-17-2010, 06:45 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottSchmidt View Post
I believe we are all saying the same thing here which is great.

Let's now just memorialize it as "Optional" from our favorite factory in the world.
Not to belabor the point, but I don't understand this point...

If everyone agrees that there is nothing regulatory to require you to install the modification just because it is designated as a Service bulletin / install before next flight, then what difference does it make what it is called?

If it was originally part of section 45 and a builder chose to not install it during construction, how is that any different than a builder choosing not to install it now?
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-17-2010, 08:59 PM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 15,420
Default Dear Scott M

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
Not to belabor the point, but I don't understand this point...
The use of the word "Required", and the phrase "Before further flight".

Think how a lawyer would use these if someone sold a plane, without the mod installed, and the buyer sued the seller.

It would seem that the term "Required" might be better as something less imperative. Suggested, recomended, advised ETC all come to mind.

Hope this helps you to understand our position.
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-17-2010, 09:07 PM
ScottSchmidt's Avatar
ScottSchmidt ScottSchmidt is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,158
Default It is about the preceived authority of an SB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
Not to belabor the point, but I don't understand this point...
Scott, if Van's puts out SB's that the majority of pilots ignore time after time, then why does Van's even do it? (now I'm really exaggerating the point)

Why would Van's not just change it to a "Letters and Notices" if it doesn't matter and it is optional to all of us?

IMHO it is about keeping SB's respectable. The only two other SB's for RV-10's are the empenage and vertical stab reinforcement that were added because of cracks being discovered.

Anyway, I don't want to argue back and forth here. We have talked before Scott and I really like your comments and feedback on everything here at VAF. We really need to meet up someday like we have talked so I can buy you a beer.

I feel I have stated my position on this and many other RV-10er's feel the same way.
A win-win would be that some can install a third lock that Van's supplies and it is released as a "Letters and Notices" rather than an SB and there won't be a large fleet of RV-10's flying around with 2/3 of the SB's issued from Van's.

I can't thank Van's enough for the great plane they have built. I now have over 670 hours of safe flight and it has changed me my wife's life forever.
__________________
Scott Schmidt
Salt Lake City, UT

RV-10 N104XP (1280 Hours)
RV-12 N321UT (Sold)

Last edited by ScottSchmidt : 01-17-2010 at 11:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:53 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.