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

[kkmarshall]

RV10
667 hrs
9 years
No cracks found

[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.

[alpinelakespilot2000]

Originally Posted by Aggie78

But if Chevy published a recall notice that said that I should immediately discontinue driving my car until I perform an important safety inspection, I wouldn't think it to be the responsibility of the Chevrolet Fan-Boy Club's website to be the primary disseminator of critical information such as that.

I would expect it from one of two sources (at least here in the USA). Either the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), who in fact has a website specifically addressing recalls) or...the manufacturer itself, either through a press release or contacting the customers directly.

And, that's exactly what happens.

An important point of the experimental, amateur built category...

Unlike Chevy for their cars, Van's is not the manufacturer. The builder is. This is what gives us freedom in the EAB category to do what we like with our planes. And what allows us to be able to afford them. It is also what places the responsibility on us as builder-owners, or as owners who did not build. If they were held to the same rules or standards that Chevy is, most of us would never be able to afford the product.

While I agree that notice a bit sooner might have been nice, and that a mechanism for communicating to owners would be good, I take them at their word that they full investigated the issue and only issued the SB when they fully understood the issues involved.

[lernez]

1993 RV-6A--4th owner.
1622 TT
No Acro
No cracks found

[RV6Danny]

RV-6
728 Hours
Inspected by taking pictures with I-Phone and visual inspection.
No cracks found.

[Michael Burbidge]

RV9A
145 hrs
2014
No cracks

[-goose]

Originally Posted by Ed_Wischmeyer

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

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.

[Yen]

No cracks on my RV4, but it was difficult to see in there.

[jcmm]

RV-7A..346 h, 2013, no problems on wing rear spar. PR-ZJC Brasil

[fixnflyguy]

No cracks in my RV-4, and as others have said, simple inspection to do...but on the other hand, we know because of some history VAN's has obtained there are some that are cracked. If I'm the guy who finds a crack, I may be reluctant to post on here and not be celebrating with high fives and fist pumps, but rather wondering why the bad luck and do I have a white elephant now. My day job keeps me in the deep bowels of AD's and SB's on heavy aircraft, and how important it is for reporting data to the MFG/designer so fatigue baselines and engineered repairs/mods can correct future and existing problems. I have not seen data linking the known cracks to a particular series, and the affected models as listed in the SB are all that have a similar design. This leads me to believe VANs is doing exactly what should be done, and collecting data while offering a solution to findings...I doubt you will find another kit built aircraft with that kind of support. Because VANs has the repair kits, they will likely get decent reporting.