What's new
Van's Air Force

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

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

Has anyone done an RV-10 with only a borescope and mirror yet? Just curious if this will be possible. I think it should be doable...but without being in front of my plane, it makes it difficult to guess.

Thanks,
Steve
 
Everyone take a deep breath.......

As airplanes age, issues can crop up that were unforeseen. This is not at all unusual as anyone that has been working on aircraft for a living will tell you.
Boeing has an entire engineering dept. that just works on engineering fixes for problems that show up as aircraft age.

Van's is being proactive in monitoring and reacting as the fleet ages. The issuance of an SB like this may be frustrating, but that is much better than the alternative.


This particular problem was discovered on one of the company demonstrators and was then reported by a couple of customer built airplanes.
At this time, those 3 are the only airplanes with cracks discovered that I know of.

Because of the discovery, a detailed FEA was done on the bracket attach point and a retrofitable reenforcement was developed.

The retrofit was beta installed on two different company demonstrators and by both of the customers that had cracks. The process and install instructions was developed based on that experience.

The bottom line with this SB is that a very small number of cracks have been detected so far. In most instances it likely will take a lot of hrs for cracks to develop (there are airplanes with well over 2000 hrs that have no cracks).
But nothing is for certain.... there can be a lot of different factors that can influence time/cycle based fatigue issues like this (interior hole finish, deburring, how the airplane is flown, etc.)
Because of this, it is possible that many airplanes could go their entire life without ever developing cracks. It is for this reason that it is not recommended this be done on completed/closed up wings. The risk of causing other problems during the install is not worth the risk, if there is not yet a physical reason to install it.

It does make sense to install the mod on wings still under construction.
I believe that kits shipped from this point on will automatically receive the additional parts.
 
there was an rv7 fatal december 2015 in Hurricane, UT . the report says wing separated
is this the basis for the sb?
alan
 
there was an rv7 fatal december 2015 in Hurricane, UT . the report says wing separated
is this the basis for the sb?
alan

Um....No.........Didn't Scott just explain in detail what the basis of the SB was in the post just prior to yours?
 
Has anyone done an RV-10 with only a borescope and mirror yet? Just curious if this will be possible. I think it should be doable...but without being in front of my plane, it makes it difficult to guess.

Thanks,
Steve

Completed the inspection using a borescope yesterday afternoon. It was the only way I could see the rivets. No cracks. Took more time to pull the panels than to inspect the rivets.

Phelps RV-7A
 
Completed the inspection using a borescope yesterday afternoon. It was the only way I could see the rivets. No cracks. Took more time to pull the panels than to inspect the rivets.

Phelps RV-7A

Unfortunately, that doesn't help. The RV-7 wing structure is different than the RV-10/14s which is why the SB calls for removing the ailerons for the 10 & 14 in order to conduct the inspection.
 
Last edited:
there was an rv7 fatal december 2015 in Hurricane, UT . the report says wing separated
is this the basis for the sb?
alan
I'm sure I'll get a board posting ticket for straying/speculating, but the preliminary report on the Utah event indicates vertical stab likely detached first. Plausible for the wing to overload soon thereafter due to loss of stability. (Point for mentioning - the Utah event is probably not related directly to the aileron attachment cracking issue.)
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, how does the company get this info out to owners? I *think* (but can't swear) that I have notified Van's that I currently own my purchased RV-4, but I've never received any notification directly from the company about any SB that applies to it.

Do they attempt to send emails to registered owners, or are we expected to check somewhere every day for service bulletins as part of our pre-flight? If so, where?

Not that I've got my panties in a wad over it, but I just gave about a half dozen Young Eagles rides, plus taking my wife to/from the event, the day after this SB was issued.

I realize that Van's is a small company; yadayadayada, and mailing letters might be seen as too expensive, but an email to registered owners??

Charlie
Can't swear to it, but it seems to me that I have received notification from Van's on past SB's. However, in every case, I found out about it from VAF or Matronics first. The Van's website has all SB's for all models.
 
What do y'all think of applying this service bulletin to a set of Quickbuild wings? I'm close to the end of the wings and I don't see the referenced parts on the Vans site. Patience is probably the right way to go here. Just wait for the parts, perform the modification while it's easy and build on.
 
RV9A, 9 1/2 yrs, 1854 hrs, no cracks found.
RV9A, 10 yrs, 540 hrs, no cracks.
RV9A, 3 yrs, 150 hrs, no cracks.
 
Last edited:
New kits will have new parts. Completed wings get inspected. What about wings under construction?
 
If the SB is dated 2016-03-28, why are we only hearing about it a month and a half later? Was it just posted to the Van's site, or has it been there for over a month now waiting for someone from here to find it?

Maybe a better question: If it's important enough to put a service bulletin out, wouldn't it be a good idea to make a post here on VAF, where (probably) the vast majority of owners check in from time to time? Certainly more frequently than one goes to the Van's site directly...
 
Scott,
Are you able to share which models discovered cracks?

I specifically haven't mentioned the models cracks were found because it really isn't relevant.
I don't want that info to bias anyone's thinking regarding any specific model.

I will say that of the three previously noted, they were not all the same model.

This can effect all models equally so all should be inspected.

BTW, this is also why I think a poll of inspection results is of no value other than to erroneously make some people think that one model is more or less likely develop a crack. The only model with a lower likelihood is the RV-6 because of the stub rib that is associated with hinge bracket attachment.
 
If the SB is dated 2016-03-28, why are we only hearing about it a month and a half later? Was it just posted to the Van's site, or has it been there for over a month now waiting for someone from here to find it?

Maybe a better question: If it's important enough to put a service bulletin out, wouldn't it be a good idea to make a post here on VAF, where (probably) the vast majority of owners check in from time to time? Certainly more frequently than one goes to the Van's site directly...

Even though Van's is not a huge company, there is still an extensive process for a SB such as this to grind through the company system (begin producing the new parts, get all of the documentation lined up, everyone educated one what is happening, etc.), so you shouldn't put to much emphasis on the date you see. It is simply the date that was attached to the SB at some point in that process.
It in no way indicates that it was ready to be announced on that date and then someone forgot and went on vacation.......
 
We just completed the inspection on all three of our RV's. It took Louise and I less than an hour to remove the six covers, take pictures of the suspect area with a cell phone stuck in through the hole, and then put the covers back on. Would have been quicker if I let Louise use a power driver, but I'm old fashioned and use a screwdriver for inspection covers to avoid buggering things up.

I highly recommend using the cell phone camera. Email the Hi Rez to yourself and then use your big computer screen to really look at the picture. I had a scratch that looked like a crack until I blew it up.

Paul

I would think a Go Pro would be helpful here too.
 
New kits will have new parts. Completed wings get inspected. What about wings under construction?

As I already mentioned, it makes sense to install it in wings currently under construction as long as it doesn't require and disassembly to do so. Kits delivered from this point on will have the new parts.

For airplanes still under construction, but with finished wings, it is just not worth the risk adding a fix for a problem that might or might not ever show it self on that particular airplane.
 
Aileron bracket inspection complete. (20 minutes)

RV-8, 10 years old, 2015 hours. My workhorse: 8 years doing air shows and 6 years of competitive aerobatics. NO CRACKS. (Wish I could say the same for my rudder! :mad:)
 
RV-8, 10 years old, 2015 hours. My workhorse: 8 years doing air shows and 6 years of competitive aerobatics. NO CRACKS. (Wish I could say the same for my rudder! :mad:)
Ron, can you send me a PM describing rudder crack issues? Don't want to get the thread off topic.

My -8 is 15 years, 1750 hrs or so, and no cracks evident.
 
Last edited:
Just a thought, but here are my concerns with the way this SB was distributed.

And I'm approaching this from a maintenance conscious, liability-aware, non-builder.

The compliance mandate in the SB was "before next flight".

The SB was released on a Friday, on a website that few of us probably check from day to day. I may look at Van's once every couple of weeks? If there hadn't been a post on VAF, I easily could have flown multiple times before being made aware of it. This timing of this release probably caught many people on the road and away from their shop/trusted mech if they are like me and don't perform a lot of their own maintenance.

If I had had an accident/incident that caused damage/injuries/etc and was sued...would I be covered if it was learned I was flying out of compliance? Ignorance is not a valid excuse, usually.

By way of a customer service contrast...we bought a bag of organic frozen veggies at Costco two weeks ago...that was found contaminated with Listeria.

So far, I have gotten 2 emails, 2 phone calls in an aggressive effort to make sure I'm aware of a serious issue with the product sold.

Van's makes a point of having me execute a document with my info on it (and a liability release, too, as I recall) before they will sell me one part or even talk to me in tech support about my aircraft. So...they have the info on most owners, already.

Again...if this thing had a compliance time of say..."in the next 20 hours" or something like that...it would be different. But, as far as the manufacturer is concerned, the aircraft should be grounded until inspected.

Under that proviso, then, I think there's a greater burden of responsibility by them to get that info into the hands of their customers ASAP.

My 2 cents,

Rob
 
None in mine and the cell phone worked great.

Why don't we quit posting about healthy airplanes and see if anybody found cracks?

Ed
 
Another RV7 - No cracks

Rv-7
2008
500 hrs.
occasional gentleman aerobatics
No cracks
Phone camera makes it easy
 
Just a thought, but here are my concerns with the way this SB was distributed.

And I'm approaching this from a maintenance conscious, liability-aware, non-builder.

The compliance mandate in the SB was "before next flight".

The SB was released on a Friday, on a website that few of us probably check from day to day. I may look at Van's once every couple of weeks? If there hadn't been a post on VAF, I easily could have flown multiple times before being made aware of it. This timing of this release probably caught many people on the road and away from their shop/trusted mech if they are like me and don't perform a lot of their own maintenance.

If I had had an accident/incident that caused damage/injuries/etc and was sued...would I be covered if it was learned I was flying out of compliance? Ignorance is not a valid excuse, usually.

By way of a customer service contrast...we bought a bag of organic frozen veggies at Costco two weeks ago...that was found contaminated with Listeria.

So far, I have gotten 2 emails, 2 phone calls in an aggressive effort to make sure I'm aware of a serious issue with the product sold.

Van's makes a point of having me execute a document with my info on it (and a liability release, too, as I recall) before they will sell me one part or even talk to me in tech support about my aircraft. So...they have the info on most owners, already.

Again...if this thing had a compliance time of say..."in the next 20 hours" or something like that...it would be different. But, as far as the manufacturer is concerned, the aircraft should be grounded until inspected.

Under that proviso, then, I think there's a greater burden of responsibility by them to get that info into the hands of their customers ASAP.

My 2 cents,

Rob

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...)
 
Last edited:
SB 16-03-28

RV 7A 421 hrs. No cracks. Digital Macro pix downloaded to computer for further magnification works great too!

LL
 
None in mine and the cell phone worked great.

Why don't we quit posting about healthy airplanes and see if anybody found cracks?

Ed

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.
 
Relevance of Models with cracks

I specifically haven't mentioned the models cracks were found because it really isn't relevant.
I don't want that info to bias anyone's thinking regarding any specific model.

I will say that of the three previously noted, they were not all the same model.

This can effect all models equally so all should be inspected.

BTW, this is also why I think a poll of inspection results is of no value other than to erroneously make some people think that one model is more or less likely develop a crack. The only model with a lower likelihood is the RV-6 because of the stub rib that is associated with hinge bracket attachment.

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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. And I mean every single detail. Absolutly nothing should be held back from us builders, ever.

Again I ALWAYS respect your opinions your guidance and your advice.

Please reconsider,

Thanks you,

Rich

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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top