What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Service Bulletin (RV-10 Install Door Safety Latch)

Mike S said:
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.
Click to expand...

ScottSchmidt said:
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?
Click to expand...

I can't speak specifically for the people that authored the Service Bulletin. So this is only my personal opinion.

RV-builders and owners are responsible for choices they make in building and flying their airplanes.
They are personally responsible if they choose to construct the airplane differently from what is recommended in the construction manual. Just the same as they are responsible for choosing whether they make a modification that is recommended.
I see no difference between the two. The only reason I can see that someone should have a problem with this service bulletin being referred to as mandatory as if they don't want to shoulder all of the responsibility (as in the example of selling the airplane without the mod. installed). Personally, I would never feel good about selling an airplane to someone that wasn't familiar with its construction, knowing that there was a passive safety that was recommended, suggested, required, (Doesn't matter how you label it) but not installed.

I believe that is the reason it was issued the way it was.

Van's Aircraft is responding to evidence that even after supplying an indicator system to help pilots be sure that they do not leave the ground with doors not properly latched, they still do so. Many people have not installed them. People have still lost doors. Is it reasonable for Van's Aircraft to be held responsible?

I am sure we can all agree that each one of those pilots should be willing to take responsibility for the loss of the door.
The sad fact is we live in a country were often times people don't want to take responsibility for any thing that is caused by their own personal choices or actions so they immediately call a Lawyer.

Mike mentions that a Lawyer would use "Mandatory" against a seller. He may be right, but what might a Lawyer use against Van's Aircraft if they did nothing?

The way I see it, issuing the service bulletin this way is forcing RV-10 owners to take responsibility for the decision they make regarding installing the latch or not. I see nothing wrong with that. Like I said already, use the freedom you have in deciding whether you install it or not. Just don't expect Van's Aircraft to shoulder the responsibility of anything bad that happens as a result of that decision. By making it mandatory before next flight it helps assure that (Ref. to previous discussion that many people still haven't installed the indicator lights).

As a side note...is everyone aware that Lycoming issues "Mandatory Service Bulletins". Even certificated airplanes are not required by regulation to comply with them unless they are operated for hire. Just as in the door latch S.B., Lycoming is forcing its customers to take responsibility for choices they make regarding the maint. of their engine.
 
Absoluetly

rvbuilder2002 said:
I am sure we can all agree that each one of those pilots should be willing to take responsibility for the loss of the door.
Click to expand...

AMEN to that! I see this no differently than pilots that land with the gear up.
Accidents happen and we all make mistakes. And I feel that most of the people have taken personal responsibility for any door departures or accidental openings.

If anything I would think the Van's Aircraft legal counsel would react very positively about the e-mails they will be reading tomorrow. We are basically saying the door is safe as designed and any departure from the airframe is pilot error. An SB could be perceived as an admission of a design flaw where a "Letter and Notice" should be compared to a parachute on a Cirrus. If the builder or pilot messes up, it is there as a last resort.

Now I am stepping way outside my expertise but I believe Van's Aircraft would have to be found grossly negligent to be in any legal issue concerning the doors and a "Letters and Notices" notification would satisfy this as a defense.
 
Last edited:
rvbuilder2002 said:
Mike mentions that a Lawyer would use "Mandatory" against a seller. He may be right, but what might a Lawyer use against Van's Aircraft if they did nothing?
Click to expand...

ScottSchmidt said:
An SB could be perceived as an admission of a design flaw
Click to expand...

Agree with both statements, but in the real world, sick as it is, both the builder and Vans would be sued, and the deep pockets would end up paying.

I know my pocket is pretty shallow--------
 
Mike S said:
Agree with both statements, but in the real world, sick as it is, both the builder and Vans would be sued, and the deep pockets would end up paying.

I know my pocket is pretty shallow--------
Click to expand...

I don't even have any pockets!:rolleyes:
 
I understand Vans is between a rock and a hard place,
BUT I have sent my email to Vans too...

In a nutshell it says:

I believe this SB is rudimentary, crude and does not enhance safety during a forced landing situation, because rescuers/passengers will need to operate 2 levers in their panic state to open a door.

A proper constructed door and safety warning lights should not require a secondary latch.

In making the SB mandatory before next flight, suggests a secondary latch is indeed required. Which means if not done can affect insurance and aircraft resale value.

If a secondary latch is indeed required as the SB dictates, then it could be argued the original design is lacking. A couple of good single door handle operations are already discussed on this forum where a third pin locks into the F-1015C mid cabin deck

I therefor requested Vans to reconsider the mandatory SB nature and wording, and put their efforts towards designing a better single handle mechanism if indeed required.

Kind Regards
Rudi
 
Door safety latch

After recently recieving the parts for the SB, and reading the threads on the subject, I have decided to add my perspective to the issue. Like Scott, I am questioning the modification to the aircraft as described per the SB but for different reasons. I have around 400 hours on my 10 and have been flying since Jan 2006. I HAVE LOST MY DOOR at 300 ft on takeoff and can tell you it is not a fun experience. Despite the gaping hole and vibration, the aircraft flew great! Fortunately, no one was hurt on the ground, and the door cleared the aircraft without causing damage. It was completely my fault! I was more concerned about checking my son's door than I was checking mine (LH door)! This was before the door warning light kits came out. After repairing the recovered door, I installed safety pins through a bracket mounted on the door which protruded through the frame of the aircraft. The obvious down side to this is that they cannot be removed from the outside and must be briefed to be pulled before any forced landing. I checked them by unlatching the door in flight under controlled conditions(and other backups) to verify the doors could not exit the door frame. There is a tremendous low pressure area above the cabin top trying to suck the doors open during flight! A couple of thoughts here! As a professional pilot with 14K hours in 20 or more different aircraft , I would like to think I approach my flying with dedication and commitment to proceedures and safety, even on a breakfast flight. Although that day was my fault, I can assure any one out there wondering if " it could happen to me" that it can! We are human beings, and eventually you will have that day when you are complacent, tired, distracted, or for what ever reason have an off day. I don't care if you are Chuck Yaeger, eventually you will have your day! This brings me to my point about the SB. I can assure you, that if one of those doors becomes unlatched, in a very violent milisecond, that door will be gone. Whether it was not closed properly, the door lights failed, or a mechanical failure to one of those high dollar door pins, you will wish you had something to physically latch the door to the frame of the aircraft. The problem I see with the SB parts, is that the hook does not prevent any upward movement. When the door goes, it does not simply open outward as in normal operation, but violently explodes upward and outward. I would guess that once these hooks are installed per the SB, it would be fairly easy ( with the flexibility of the door ), from the outside, to lift up and outward and these hooks will clear the frame. I hope I am wrong and we will see as the modifications are complete. Will I comply with the SB? Absolutely! But, I will probably modify the hooks, and the door frame catch, to have more of a lip to prevent upward movement! Sorry to all for the detailed explanation, but once this has happened to you and you get away with it, you will realize that even if being checklist/ preflight vigilant, the only true solution is to prevent the doors from budging out of the door frame!! If for whatever reason they do, they WILL be gone and injury and/or damage is likely to occur!! Cheers, Mark.
 
I sold my RV10 a couple of years ago but I think I'll send a letter to Vans as well. Mine will read something like this:

"Dear Van....thank you for coming out with the SB on the RV10 doors. Although I never had any issues with my doors I appreciate your concern for safety and your follow up with concerns that have been raised. Nothing wrong with a little belt and suspenders approach."

If you don't want to put the new latch on......don't. You might feel a little silly if you forget to latch your door or the pins aren't engaged properly or ??? and you don't notice your lights or voice alert or whatever......and it dissappears. It might ruin your day.....and someone elses.

I stopped saying 'it can't happen to me' a long long time ago.

My opinion......Van made a sound call on this....period.
 
rv6rick said:
I sold my RV10 a couple of years ago but I think I'll send a letter to Vans as well. Mine will read something like this:

"Dear Van....thank you for coming out with the SB on the RV10 doors. Although I never had any issues with my doors I appreciate your concern for safety and your follow up with concerns that have been raised. Nothing wrong with a little belt and suspenders approach."

If you don't want to put the new latch on......don't. You might feel a little silly if you forget to latch your door or the pins aren't engaged properly or ??? and you don't notice your lights or voice alert or whatever......and it dissappears. It might ruin your day.....and someone elses.

I stopped saying 'it can't happen to me' a long long time ago.

My opinion......Van made a sound call on this....period.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here has even come close to saying "it can't happen to me". Most said a long time ago that this is a serious problem and have looked at various ways to mitigate the risk. What I am hearing is a fairly strong response that the Van's SB is no better than what many of us have done to try and insure that our doors don't depart.
Most are upset with the "Mandatory" "Before further flight" wording of the SB as well. I have always felt that the RV-10 doors were the main weakness in this great airplane. So, I am pleased that Van's acknowledges that there is a problem. I just don't think this fix is a very good one.
I am hoping that someone a lot smarter than me will come up with a door that hinges on the leading edge.:)
 
"Mandatory" "Before further flight"
Click to expand...

Everyone keeps bringing this up, but explain to me why this is a problem if it doesn't apply to your airplane? If it doesn't apply to you, then it's 100% no big deal.

Why are we continuing to make it a big deal if EVERYONE acknowledges that you're well within the FAR's to completely ignore a Service Bulletin...

Vans SB is no different than your dentist saying you need to get your teeth cleaned every 6 months...

If it doesn't apply, then don't install it.

So before I go and lose focus with this post, lets just stop right there.

Why is it a big deal?
 
Phil said:
Everyone keeps bringing this up, but explain to me why this is a problem if it doesn't apply to your airplane? If it doesn't apply to you, then it's 100% no big deal.

Why are we continuing to make it a big deal if EVERYONE acknowledges that you're well within the FAR's to completely ignore a Service Bulletin...

Vans SB is no different than your dentist saying you need to get your teeth cleaned every 6 months...

If it doesn't apply, then don't install it.

So before I go and lose focus with this post, lets just stop right there.

Why is it a big deal?
Click to expand...

I totally agree, Phil. I made that decision pretty quickly after reading the SB. So, why did Van's word the SB that way? CYA, it appears.
I am following your advice and stopping right here! :)
 
I guess that's kinda where I am too, David.

I don't see any problems with Vans acknowledging a problem and issuing a fix. Even if the motive is CYA.

Just think about the alternative. How would we feel if Vans would ignore a known problem and run off to put their head in the sand? In the mean time we're losing people and planes because they won't do anything to help.

Would we rather have a kit manufacturer that follows up on their designs, recognizes their flaws, and offers solutions? The question has already been answered with our wallet. Yes; that's why we pay more for a Vans kit.

When it gets right down to it, the root of 95% of the complaining is it's ugly. Most of the -10 drivers want something clean and integrated since we're all trying to build nicely finished cruisers. Everyone knows it's an improvement on the design, but we're trying to find excuses to keep the nasty booger from dangling off our airplane.

As I mentioned everyone is wanting a complete redesign of the door mechanics. But service bulletins aren't about redesigning the airplane; they're about offering a focused retrofit solution to solve a known problem. Those that were (or are) hoping for a complete redesign, you're out of luck.

On a side note, if Van did offer a redesigned door and made it mandatory I'm sure we'd all be complaining about spending time building, fitting doors, damaging paint, cutting interior, etc... But that's a hypothetical because it's not going to happen - from Vans at least.

Before everyone thinks that I'll be the first one to have the SB installed in my airplane, I can tell you I'm still undecided. I might design a solution of my own, there might be a CNC machined solution later on, or I might find a piece of certified hardware that accomplishes the task. So I'm still on the fence.

But I'm also the last person to be writing Vans and telling them they don't know what they're doing and they have no right to issue a retrofit solution for a known problem in their design. Especially when my real motive is to just get something that looks cleaner on the airplane.

Phil
 
Last edited:
Nailed it Deems

Deems Davis said:
Insurance !!
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Can anyone imaging an insurance company paying a loss claim for a lost door now, unless the SB was installed.

Or, any accident claim caused by the door attempting flight without the rest of the airframe??
 
I agree with the insurance statement.

I also think we can agree on these two statement too.

Does it make the airplane safer?
Not completely proven; but probably.
It's as proven as any solution we can dream up.​

Does it make the airplane any more unsafe?
Absolutely not.​

I've yet to hear a good reason why it shouldn't be installed. Vans suggested the same thing in their e-mailed response yesterday. They haven't heard a good reason for not installing it either.

So what's the reservation with installing it if there's no downside? Is it ugly?
 
Last edited:
The thought that this does not apply to some RV-10 owners or builders is absurd. Every 10 owner has a stake in this issue!!
Obviously each builder can choose to comply with the SB or not, but by discussing the issue we have already generated multiple ideas that will make this a safer airplane in the long run.
We can continue to pretend that tightening up our vigilence and proceedures is enough to solve this problem, or we can accept the fact that doors will be lost unless an additional hardpoint latch is installed that prevents the doors from shifting in the door frame.
It has been enough of an issue to this point for Van's to get involved. You have to believe that insurance issues are soon to follow!! Take a look at the Lancair IV issues. They have had problems to the point where obtaining insurance is next to impossible. I would think every 10 owner would be concerned about elevating insurance premiums because of a known deficiencies and risk with regards to the doors!
If you think this thread about the doors is pointless/not relevant and not worth brainstorming some new designs, picture this. Your're flying your 10 with family on board, a gaping hole in the side, vibrating like an out of balance washing machine with everything not tied down whipping around the cabin! Your hoping the airplane stays together and you're wondering where your door went and who it hit on the ground! If and when you make it back on the ground and have time to reflect, you realize that no proceedures, door indicating system, or other warning devices would have been the FINAL failsafe in preventing the experience. If for whatever reasons these primary things failed on that not so perfect day, only a third hardpoint safety pin or latch would have kept the door from leaving the airplane!
Let's keep working this and sooner or later one of you smart guys out there will have a solution that will be beneficial to us all!
 
Phil said:
They haven't heard a good reason for not installing it either.

So what's the reservation with installing it if there's no downside? Is it ugly?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head:
  • It's ugly
  • It's another place for water to enter
  • More drag
  • More weight
  • Makes egress more complicated
  • More construction time
 
If you do not like the current offering, design your own, just make sure it is as effective.

We did........about 12 weeks ago.

Is it an art piece...no. Is it effective, yes. Does it satisfy the intent of the SB, Yes. Does it poke out the side of the door...No.

If only I had some pics to post, if I remember to get some on the weekend I will.

DB:cool:
 
Looking forward to it, David.

I was wondering about putting a flush push button on the exterior to raise the latch.

Looking forward to your solution..
Phil
 
I put this in another thread, but

I felt like posting it here as well to get feedback on the idea.

Drawing1.jpg


It keeps the new latch (that I actually like) minus the tab on the outside of the door that is UGLY and a place for leaks. Not having the doors yet, not sure if it would be feasable.

thanks for the feedback,
 
Has been tested? When it has been tested to 190 knots I will then put it on. Until then I consider useless.
 
RV10inOz said:
If you do not like the current offering, design your own, just make sure it is as effective.

We did........about 12 weeks ago.

Is it an art piece...no. Is it effective, yes. Does it satisfy the intent of the SB, Yes. Does it poke out the side of the door...No.

If only I had some pics to post, if I remember to get some on the weekend I will.

DB:cool:
Click to expand...

Hi DB some pictures would be nice, please remember :D
 
Mike S said:
Exactly.

Can anyone imaging an insurance company paying a loss claim for a lost door now, unless the SB was installed.

Or, any accident claim caused by the door attempting flight without the rest of the airframe??
Click to expand...

Ditto Insurance,

Even if it wasn't a lost door problem, in a total loss you'll (or your living familily)will have to proof not having installed the SB did not contribute to the incident. :mad:

PS: There is no flight proof, including at Vans, that the SB latch will indeed keep a door intact. If I add a 'latch' I will want to KNOW that it will work as intended OR at least can't find any faults or concerns with a design by just looking at it.

Rudi
 
Last edited:
rleffler said:
Per Gus at Vans, the SB hasn't been tested either. Does that make it useless too? :eek:
Click to expand...
yes it is. When it has been tested and has been proven to hold the door closed with one of the pins not latched then I will install it. Until then it is dead weight.
 
jtrollin said:
I felt like posting it here as well to get feedback on the idea.

Drawing1.jpg


It keeps the new latch (that I actually like) minus the tab on the outside of the door that is UGLY and a place for leaks. Not having the doors yet, not sure if it would be feasable.

thanks for the feedback,
Click to expand...

I think that is a great idea.
 
jtrollin said:
I felt like posting it here as well to get feedback on the idea.

Drawing1.jpg


It keeps the new latch (that I actually like) minus the tab on the outside of the door that is UGLY and a place for leaks. Not having the doors yet, not sure if it would be feasable.

thanks for the feedback,
Click to expand...

I like this idea. The primary drawback, as I see it, is that the latch will be held in the "unlatched" position as long as the door handle is in the open position. If I understand the SB correctly, the latch is normally held in the "latched" position by the spring at all times (except when you push the exterior tab or raise the latch from the inside). This means, in theory, you can pull the door down and it will latch the door in place, and then you rotate the handle to the locked position. Similar to a Cessna door.
However, I still like this approach because I am unwilling, at this point, to have the exterior hole and aluminum tab in my doors, and this would accomplish the goal of having a third latch engaged with the door closed and latched.
 
Modified Vans SB Door Latch

While I agree in principle with the others that I like the effective look of this modification (assuming you haven't yet built your doors) for those of use who have flying RV-10's it is not an option.

jtrollin said:
I felt like posting it here as well to get feedback on the idea.

Drawing1.jpg


It keeps the new latch (that I actually like) minus the tab on the outside of the door that is UGLY and a place for leaks. Not having the doors yet, not sure if it would be feasable.

thanks for the feedback,
Click to expand...
 
With the middle latch installed, I would think that it would not allow the pins to get on the outside of the cabin when closing. The clip is in the middle of the door, with the front pin in and the clip latched, I do not think the door could flex enough to allow the back pin to not go in. The door is very rigid on the bottom span so I know it will not flex there. This is a much different set up than the door flexing throughout its whole length from the top hinges.

Just think about how we close it now. You hold the lever and put some rearward force to ensure the back pin goes in then you rotate while holding in. If you do not put some force/ twisting action to the handle, the back pin may not be perfectly aligned.Some people have added straps to the door to help pull it in at the rear.

With the clip installed we will just shut the door enough for the clip to engage and that should hold everything tight and you just close the lever. The pins should have no choice but to go in the holes. I am just guessing here, but I think the design is more to get the pins in the hole than to keep the door closed if the pins are not in.

That is how I am looking at it and I think it will be of help for closing the door and making sure the pins are in.
 
Engineering

Unproven? Even in certified aircraft, the FAA accepts engineering analysis of simple structures as proof of compliance. The structural analysis of the safety latch happens to be a very simple statics problem and a crude analysis could be done in the space of 1 or 2 naptkins. I'd imagine it was designed to a similar standard as the rest of the airframe and they probably did some type of static loat test also (sit inside and push on the door).

I think the only valid strike against the service bulletin is appearance. Although it's clearly ugly; safety should trumph looks. I think it's best to install the safety latch or a better looking equivalent if you prefer. If I were still building, I'd consider converting to a front-hinged door which is inherently safer.
 
Until the latch actually saves a few folks bacon it will always be unproven.

As Mark (crewrest65) mentioned, the movement of the door is very unpredictable. In his own run-in with the door gremlin, he said the door didn't swing on its hinges. Instead it appeared to lift vertically into the low pressure area above the cabin - then it was ripped from the airplane.

I'd have to believe him. After all, he had the best seat in the house and knows how the door is removed better than any of us who are speculating.

Is the lip on the SB enough to hold the door in and to keep it from lifting straight up? We don't know - yet. But we will in another 12-18 months.

Until then, it's all napkin theory. Doesn't mean the theory is wrong; most likely it's right. But it still hasn't done its job on any improperly closed doors yet.

All that being said, I think it's crazy not to install it or to come up with a similar solution. The insurance comment is a reason to install it, not one to avoid installing it. I'm still waiting for a good reason to avoid it. Water leakage is the only logical concern I've heard, but that's easily manageable and is nothing more than a concern when you're talking about a safety device.

Weight? - Any alternative solution will add weight.

Time? - Any alternative solution will add time.

Ugly? - Not a good reason to compromise safety.

Drag - It's about the size of a thumb nail. How much is it really? You can even make it smaller, or give it a bullet shape with just a little bit more customization.

thumb.jpg


Egress - It'll become second nature in a week or two. Just like every time you buy a new car. You'll get your routine and it'll be something you don't even think about and it won't take any extra time.

I think that after a few people see them installed in person, the response won't be so repulsive. Can't remember if it was mentioned in this thread or another one, but I'll agree with the original writer who bet that 90% of the RV-10's at OSH this year will have it installed.

Phil
 
Last edited:
David Shelton said:
Unproven? Even in certified aircraft, the FAA accepts engineering analysis of simple structures as proof of compliance. The structural analysis of the safety latch happens to be a very simple statics problem and a crude analysis could be done in the space of 1 or 2 naptkins. I'd imagine it was designed to a similar standard as the rest of the airframe and they probably did some type of static loat test also (sit inside and push on the door).

I think the only valid strike against the service bulletin is appearance. Although it's clearly ugly; safety should trumph looks. I think it's best to install the safety latch or a better looking equivalent if you prefer. If I were still building, I'd consider converting to a front-hinged door which is inherently safer.
Click to expand...

That worked well for the original design didn't it!
 
OK,
Still lots of speculation going on.

A. Has a door ever been lost that was properly latched prior to flight? If so what were the circumstances and was the door stock or did it have any mods?
B. Has anyone asked an Insurance agent how implementing or not implementing an unproven engineering fix issued via an SB for an E-AB aircraft actually affects premimums or claims?

I ask these questions because I'm inclined not to install this SB, (when the time comes as I'm just on my wings), even if it were more sexy, unless I'm forced to by my insurance company. I've come to that conclusion after reading the numerous posts on this here and over at Matronics. I've applied my personal ORM to this and just simply don't see the added benefit without more conlcusive data on losses of properly latched doors or on the tested ability of the latch-type system to work as advertized.
 
The thread that started it all??

Here is the original thread showing the latch from which Vans appears to have been copied/birthed/developed.

Take a moment to look at this, also look at the simple safety that Ross came up with in post 23.

I have also seen a similar device that Dave (superdave) McClellend made with a piece of square tubing that just simply slid over the inner door handle. Mentioned in post 11.

By the way, just received my SB kit from Vans yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Will not install Door SB

I feel compelled to weigh in on this topic to allow the collective whole to see how many people are falling on each side of the fence and why. I am not flying yet, so i can't speak from personal experience in my own plane.

Steps I have taken in my build so far:

1. I put spray foam in my inside door shells and allowed them to cure, then cut off the excess with a bread knife. When I put the two door shells together, I spread epoxy on the foam and on the outside shell. My door weighs more - but it is very stiff !! I don't see any way that it can 'flex out' or 'suck up' when in flight. I did have to add stronger door lifts.

2. I added the aftermarket aluminum latching blocks. My pins extend well into the cabin frame.

3. I changed the warning light system so that a LARGE RED LIGHT mounted over my PFD lights up if 1 of the 4 pins is NOT in place. This will be very hard to miss.

4. I went with McMaster Carr door seal that is mounted on the cabin instead of the stock Van's supplied door seal - which also got very lousy reviews.

5. I added wooden door sill - just line VAN HIMSELF! Is he installing the Sevice Bulletin?I guess I could cut a bit slot into the sill.

6. I think that a person could NOT get out of this plane in a hurry if they needed to...and remergency personnel would never figure it out.

I will NOT be installing the service bulletin door latch system for all of the reasons listed above.... but also...

The pin that extends to the outside of the door has a slot! Every time I wash the plane, I will be putting water inside the door! What a great place for mold and mildew to build up.

I have to weigh in with Scott. I think the service bulletin is "Cheese Ball" Engineering at it's very finest. They are covering their insurance, while putting us at risk if we don't take a bite of the Cheeseball. What they have done is fine... but I agree that it should not be mandatory, as this could void insurance and increase the lawsuit potential.
 
My door with just the original latches was continually tested yesterday for two hours by a hound dog. I believe there is no way the doors will open up in flight if they are properly fastened. That dog wedged his nose between the seat and the door countless times during the flight and the door did not flex one bit.
 
elmer fudd

:) After reviewing the drawings and hardware package for the safety latch SB, I have seen the light. Im going to Lowes and get a couple screen door handles, and screen door hasps. Ill mount the handle on the inside of the door, fasten the hasp to the door sill and GUNG HO. When I latch the door, Ill just pull the center in real hard and tight with the screen door handle and finger the hasp over the handle and then slam the latch pins home. I wont have any protruding parts in my slip stream, nor will I have a need for an outside release lever cause when I exit the plane on dry land, I wont latch the center latch on exit cause I dont think passing prop wash form King Airs will suck open my door on the ramp. If anyone is in the right seat Ill just give instructions on latching as part of my passenger briefing. ummm dee dumm dummm.. :eek: :D :p
 
Last edited:
Sorry Folks I keep forgetting to take a photo of the door pin we fitted some months ago, however this link will give you an idea of the device we used. Its a commercially available foot oprerated door lock with a pin (no rubber on the end) that goes through a s/s plate and hole in the door sill.

http://www.handles4doors.co.uk/Ironmongery-Door-Fittings/Door-Stops-Holders/sc636/p24451.aspx

The release is a quick push down on the release tab for emergency exitso nothing hard about that and it is typically hidden by the seat back rest in flight so you can't easily release it by mistake.

This pin will not insert unless the door is closed properly anyway and that along with the door warning system connected to out D180, its pretty hard to stuff up!

Our concern was more with door flex, and it helped with that, but at the same time it meets the intent of the SB.

In experimental I believe so long as you can make an entry in your airframe logbook that you have met the inetention and criteria of the SB you have fulfilled any obligation, even if its an alternate solution.

Cheers!

DB:cool:
 
Oz

I like that idea mate, but.
I looked at Vern Darleys design that addresses the fact of insertion of the rear pins and Im thinking that is the crucial factor. You need somethng that will firmly snug in the door so as to insure the aft pins will go into the guide blocks and thence pass thru the frame channel. If you can guarantee this gets done then you have a good idea because the frame channel is the keeper of the sheep.

what I found is the door has a bit of flex, and wants to ride out at the back when you try to close it, so you need something that will conteract this. I believe if you can guarantee insertion of the rear pins beyound the frame channel then your locked in tight. To me this means pulling in the door good and tight before closing the latch. thence a pull handle in the center. JMO
 
Agreed, in our installation, you won't get the alarm going off unless the pins are ALL THE WAY in plus you can engage the centre pin (will not line up with the hole) unless both door pins are fully in. We have the alloy blocks on ours too.

I like the 3 way system on the video, but we have doors built and 130 hours on them. We installed the centre pin purely for flex, or in the event of someone opening a door....or accidently doing it. We were never in doubt our doors would be closed properly. Too many audio and EMS alarms. but its now not likely to lose a door in flight even if you open the the normal locks. But I am not going to test that :eek: and no need to.

Just more ideas.......... our idea was simple to fit and does two things, limits flex whcih was its primary purpose and now it satisfies the AD in my opinion. So for anyone with existing doors this is a good option.

I will try to remember to take pics next time, trouble is the -10 is so much fun I forget!

DB:cool:
 
So Why a MANDATORY SB?

FAA provides information on Liberty door problems
Liberty Aerospace has come up with a solution for a problem with doors on its two-seat XL-2 aircraft that may pop open in flight. The FAA said it is ?not an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive action.? The FAA released a special airworthiness information bulletin explaining that ?there have been six occurrences of a door opening in flight on Liberty XL-2 airplanes. In all six cases, the pilot has been able to land the airplane safely and there is evidence the door was not properly latched before takeoff


So I ask again..............Why did Van's feel they needed to issue a MANDATORY SB when the FAA is not issuing an AD on Liberty's door issue? At a certain point it is the Pilots/builders responsibility to make sure the doors function and are shut!

Dean (removing doors to make an RV10 convertible)
 
Dont know anything about the Liberty Xl2, is it also a 200 mph aircraft with doors that depart the airframe milliseconds after opening in flight???
 
I have been holding off installing the SB to see what some of the really smart and creative people on these forums come up with as an alternative. Steve Dinieri at IflyRV10.com has come up with a nice one piece latch and the promise of an alternative installation that does not require a hole in the outside of the door. (My biggest issue with the SB)

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=68598
 
In Praise of Van's Safety Latch

Before first flight I installed the stock Van's safety latch. Installation wasn't very hard -- I just had to be careful because my plane was already painted.

I now have 26 hours on the plane, and I like the safety latch. The safety latch gives a very satisfying "thunk" when it engages... such that I know the door is properly aligned and ready for the main pins to engage. There's never any question about pin misalignment, no worry about the pins missing the guides and gouging the paint.

When working around the plane (mx work, loading, whatever) on a breezy ramp, it is very easy to close the door and push to engage the safety latch, without having to reach and turn the handle. This protects the door from getting stressed by wind, yet leaves the door easy to open to complete the mx work, loading, etc.

And the price is right. ;<)
 
pierre smith said:
...is there a recent picture of this latch that shows it retracted?

Thanks,
Click to expand...

Steve's IflyRV10.com site does not have any recent info on this latch system. It is still shown as "coming soon".

I am going to be patient and wait to see the finished product because I have been very happy with Steve's products and customer service.
 
Just installed Sean's 90 door latch mechanism. What a nice fix. Not only addresses the door loss issue but also draws in door to make closing a piece of cake. I was also getting some draft on bottom seal which was a slight amount of door bowing at cruise. That has also been eliminated.
 
youtube

dmaib said:
Steve's IflyRV10.com site does not have any recent info on this latch system. It is still shown as "coming soon".

I am going to be patient and wait to see the finished product because I have been very happy with Steve's products and customer service.
Click to expand...

I was cruising around on youtube and the iflyrv10 latch prototype that does not require a hole is on there. At work right now, so I don't have the bookmark.

My current intentions are to use the camlock setup with the iflyrv10 flush handles.
 
I'm confused....

...as well. My handle doesn't lay flat when the doors are unlatched....it points up at about 1 o'clock. His gear system may be modified for more travel,

Best,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top