2theskyy
Well Known Member
+1^….. Van’s has already screwed us with the lcp decision.
Last edited:
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Factory Info: Parts with Laser Cut Holes and Potential for Cracks
- Thread starter greghughespdx
- Start date
- Status
+1^….. Van’s has already screwed us with the lcp decision.
Jonnyb
Well Known Member
Ah, 30 years of being screwed over by crewing! I can relate to that!
Going back to the QB and LCP issue. This is what the testing is about. I would think that if the testing comes back ok Vans will say leave it alone. If it doesn’t, they will sort it.
No one is going to expect you to take your wings apart unless you want to.
tenacious9
Member
Well that's the rub, isn't it. So let's say: they say it's good, just inspect it a bit more often. Would you then build on and spend and additional $150K+. Or would you toss the 33K in QB kits, to start fresh with proven parts that have millions of hours on them and have proven themselves over the decades.
They might even say almost all the QB kits got the punched parts. But then what if yours was one that didn't? How would you know?
I mean honestly who would start a build on a new QB kit, knowing that the lcp are going to be one offs, never produced again at vans because they see that it was a huge error.
Again everyone is in a different boat. Lots of variables. I plan to live forever, If it is my butt in the seat - I want to do it RIGHT!
Last edited:
There is no way that a test program, performed by a small business in a few months, can possibly give a blanket OK to known cracks in aircraft.
Assuming the testing shows acceptable results, they can provide their data and, as builders, we may choose to accept deviation from the standard. That said, I assert that Van's will need to offer acceptable remediation (part replacement including QB status that customers paid for) or they will have a major reputational hit that will impact each and every one of us.
The range of testing required to give a blanket update to crack acceptance mitigation - different LCP quality, variations in build technique, etc., is completely out of scope with what can be accomplished in the current program. Again, we all make our own decisions, but after the known missteps on the LCP issue I'm going to be conservative - I'd suspect I'm not alone. I'm not excited about rebuilding my wing (nearly to QB stage), but I have checked the unpainted ribs from the other wing and they have nearly 100% cracking after reaming, deburr, and dimpling. I may feel differently if the airplane was done or much further along, but I know I'll regret not spending a month or two and a little money now to just "live with it." I would like to get that "month or two" started!
Vans chose to depart from aviation standards in using LCPs, and despite their own claims about how important the toolpath programming was, they failed to QC their suppliers, failed to inspect the parts after delivery, failed to track a major change in production method which would have allowed better awareness of the scope of the problem (waiting a month for a couple pictures of edges/holes which this board provided in hours is not progress), and gave faulty guidance to builders who asked for nearly a year. I don't think we're out of line to ask for a little more than "trust us" at this point.
I always planned to have one of those tongue-in-cheek placards "it doesn't meet FAA standards - it exceeds them!", or at least think it to myself. There is no way I can accept hundreds of known cracks and still make the claim.
Last edited:
tenacious9
Member
^^^THIS^^^.
Walt
Well Known Member
Give me an f’n break, screwed over for 30 yrs, really! Crying all the way to the bank I imagine.
Like I used to tell my mechanics who were well paid but often felt ‘abused’, don’t like it go find another job or quit your bitch&@.
Know your audience.
Last edited:
They hired an outside engineering consulting firm to back up their own testing. I suspect they will adjust the parts replacement policy based on the findings. Otherwise, why bother?
Jonnyb
Well Known Member
Given you have spent 30 years flying airliners, just what do you think you have been flying?
Do you think every aircraft you have flown has been perfect? Crack free? Corrosion free? Airworthy in every way?
Some aircraft coming off major manufacturers production lines are still not airworthy. Do you think they should all be grounded? Boeing didn’t want to ground the max even after it had killed 200 people!
Perfection is the enemy of completion even in the certified world.
If Vans says it’s good to go, and will warranty it as such then I’m not sure there’s much comeback.
tenacious9
Member
I was also an aircraft mechanic part-time while flying for the airlines (to help make ends meet). I've been through mergers, acquisitions, Strikes, bankruptcy and furlough. I don't think you have walked in my moccasins nor have I walked in yours. With that being said if you go around telling "YOUR Mechanics" who are unhappy - "quit your bitching or find a new job". You sound like an angry and unhappy person.
First you don't own those mechanics they aren't "YOURS". I knew of 4000 plus mechanics (many friends) who dedicated their professional lives, to a company only to be screwed over and lose their pension promised and then have the doors shut on them while the company hired newbies to do their job.
I think they did it because they had to, and "external engineering firm" sounds better than "the same people who made the initial mistake". Also, they likely needed access to equipment that they didn't have in house.
That doesn't change the fact that to wholesale refine the world's standard for crack acceptability in aluminum airplanes will take a lot more testing than Vans in in the position to conduct, consultant or not.
I acknowledge that this is my opinion, but I think the best they'll get from their testing is risk acceptance data for the specific samples they tested. Until a few months ago, Vans (and the entire metal aircraft world) said cracks in dimples are not acceptable. Based on the video from Oshkosh, now they are hinting that known cracks at the dimpled hole are OK, as most of the stress is on the outer radius. If true, think of how many hours of builder time could have been saved over the last 30 years! Never deburr again! Probably don't even need to final drill - just punch the dimple through.
If I'd shown up on this board a year ago claiming that this was an acceptable build artifact I'm pretty sure I'd have been banned. I find it convenient, and suspicious, that it is only considered when Vans has money on the line.
And standards & best practices are designed to build margin for likely errors, escapes, etc. Completely different to start with known defects.
I have personally rejected military delivery of parts and aircraft with less egregious noncompliances.
Jonnyb
Well Known Member
At this stage no one is saying it’s acceptable. What most people are saying is wait for the testing and wait for van’s response.
Even if Vans say it’s good to go, they may well offer replacement parts. We just don’t know at this stage.
But for people to come out and say they won’t accept any deviation from perfection is just unrealistic to my mind.
Ahh, the trait of a true leader! I can only imagine the employee moral and loyalty with a thought process like yours at the helm.
tenacious9
Member
I'm sure there are cracks on every airliner. I'm not flying an airliner - I'm building a plane. Why would I build on parts that are known to have a much higher probability of cracking? Wouldn't it make more sense to build on parts that have a proven track record and don't crack the second you hammer that rivet down?
Amazing how these "Vans Apologists" sure have trouble seeing the forest thru all those trees. I know your worried that we will taint the brand and you will lose resale or heaven-forbid vans falters and goes into Bankruptcy. But in all fairness that isn't my or your problem. Thats on Vans - what they do from this point on will define the new Vans 2.0.
I am cautiously optimistic they will do the work necessary.
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
Here's my $0.02...
We don't speculate about accident causes in this space.
We shouldn't speculate about the resolution of this issue. It'll only cause angst and arguments.
Wait for the concrete information from Vans.
We don't speculate about accident causes in this space.
We shouldn't speculate about the resolution of this issue. It'll only cause angst and arguments.
Wait for the concrete information from Vans.
Pskluz
Member
I feel like I have been in a holding pattern for months. I have both a QB fuselage and wings sitting in my shop. (Have not touched the wings but attachment of the aft fuselage was nearly complete). Both of my QB were delivered in March of 2023. Parts were shipped to the EXemplar on May 29, 2022. If I assume that they used the parts from that shipment to build my QBs
(not sure we can assume this and insight from Vans on the subject would be unbelievable helpful), then my fuselage is mostly free of LCP. This of course is based on the dates LCP entered Vans inventory. My wings are another story entirely. Brian from Vans said the same to me at OSH so I assume my wings are loaded with LCP. I have checked those parts in my fuselage with a wireless microscope and believe I may have lucked out as the first parts in inventory for a 14 fuselage was only one week before the parts were shipped to EXempler. I haven’t found any cracks but we need guidance from Vans on how if at all to proceed.
(not sure we can assume this and insight from Vans on the subject would be unbelievable helpful), then my fuselage is mostly free of LCP. This of course is based on the dates LCP entered Vans inventory. My wings are another story entirely. Brian from Vans said the same to me at OSH so I assume my wings are loaded with LCP. I have checked those parts in my fuselage with a wireless microscope and believe I may have lucked out as the first parts in inventory for a 14 fuselage was only one week before the parts were shipped to EXempler. I haven’t found any cracks but we need guidance from Vans on how if at all to proceed.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know that anything I build (or buy for that matter) is far from perfect. That doesn't mean I don't control what I can. Known cracks on 90%+ of the fasteners in my wing are a little over the line. While I cringe to say this, I'm not sure if there is any testing which could possibly change my mind.. and I think Van's agrees. They've committed to replacing "all dimpled LCP". I just wish they'd focus on replacement, communication, and then testing for the leftover cases, in that order. It sure seems to be the opposite.
No matter the test results, I can't imagine explaining to a potential buyer (or my wife as I strap her into the back seat!) that despite violating multiple long-lived airworthiness standards, these cracks are OK beause a small company ran a 3-month test program.
In general, I appreciate where you're coming from. Data should drive decisions. There are two things making me more conservative here:
- This is a 100% reversal from the specific guidance ever since the first kit. Section 5 still says to deburr dimpled holes "to reduce the probability of cracking". Calling these known cracks acceptable is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence, that in my engineering judgement is not possible with what we know about the testing program so far.
- Vans has made a series of poor decisions with respect to LCP, and that has increased my level of skepticism. Again, personal opinion, but I doubt I'm alone.
Last edited:
Walt
Well Known Member
A big reason I decided to retire after 25yrs in the airline was the people. They thought the airline owed them a living and would tell you so, if you asked them to work more than 4 hours a day they felt ‘abused’. The fact that most we’re making a 100k a year didn’t seem to matter. Was it all peaches and cream, no.. but I had a great career there, raised a family, and was grateful for how fortunate I was.
It makes me cringe when folks make 6 figure incomes (x2 or more for pilots) then complain about it is all.
Heck, I had a pilot acquaintance complain he was only making 400k during Covid, to STAY HOME! Might have to sell the VC house on the lake, OMG the horror.
As a new builder of a Vans airplane with $70k spent so far without a rivet driven yet, it would absolutely be my problem if Vans goes bankrupt over this.
"Vans apologist" or not, we need to work together to get through this. I'm doing my part by being patient and trusting Greg, Rian and the rest of the Vans team to make the right decisions moving forward.
Walt
Well Known Member
Blame the new ‘work ethic’ and unions for declining moral in the work force, go try to manage the airline union workers, if you can get them off the phone it’s a miracle.
The general moral at the airline was so bad it was depressing to have to deal with it at the end, everyone hated their job. I retired.
My point initially was folks get paid really well at the airlines, especially the pilots, but everyone still complains about how mistreated they are, same old story.
Off my soapbox.
Last edited:
The “entire metal aircraft world” still says it’s not acceptable, and I agree with all you say.
While Van’s testing could pioneer the thought that we’ve been doing it all wrong this whole time, I highly doubt that’s going to gain much, if any traction.
We build and operate these machines to a clear and certain standard and using official documentation provided by our governing body as guidance. Aviation is really cut and dry in that regard.
Before we start arguing over the benefits of the experimental category here in the good old US of A, please understand my above statement is in regards to assembling an all metal airframe. There are many excellent benefits to the experimental category of aircraft that has stifled innovation on the certified side. That’s why we are all here, right?
Standards and quality must be maintained, and we all know how easy it would be to let those elements of the build slip at times.
Last edited:
Jonnyb
Well Known Member
It’s the old joke, what’s the difference between pilots and engines? Engines stop whining when you pull on stand!
It was ever thus.
Well, perhaps unsurprisingly, there was no update yesterday - yesterday being the date that was promised three weeks ago. Regardless of how busy your work day is, an update you promised three weeks ago should not catch you on the hop and should have been largely prepared and ready to go sometime in advance.
Thus far, there is no update today.
I'll probably get flamed for this. People will say "what does a day or two matter?" or "leave off, they're busy!" Well, it's about trust and confidence. It's about your customer believing that you'll do what you say you'll do, when you say you'll do it. If you can't even deliver on an update, what chance have you of delivering on product?
To resolve this satisfactorily is going to cost Van's many millions. Van's must either:
1) Claim on their own insurance
2) Put it onto their supplier, and claim on their insurance
3) Borrow money to cover the costs, with their collateral being the value of the brand and business afterwards with them having done the right thing
I don't know what people's nuclear options are in the US, but people talk of abandoning their builds and writing the money off. Being UK based, my nuclear option is a Section 75 claim against my credit card company on the basis that the supplier has not fulfilled the contract, which as a default outcome gives me everything I've spent back and leads to Visa going after Van's for the costs.
Thus far, there is no update today.
I'll probably get flamed for this. People will say "what does a day or two matter?" or "leave off, they're busy!" Well, it's about trust and confidence. It's about your customer believing that you'll do what you say you'll do, when you say you'll do it. If you can't even deliver on an update, what chance have you of delivering on product?
To resolve this satisfactorily is going to cost Van's many millions. Van's must either:
1) Claim on their own insurance
2) Put it onto their supplier, and claim on their insurance
3) Borrow money to cover the costs, with their collateral being the value of the brand and business afterwards with them having done the right thing
I don't know what people's nuclear options are in the US, but people talk of abandoning their builds and writing the money off. Being UK based, my nuclear option is a Section 75 claim against my credit card company on the basis that the supplier has not fulfilled the contract, which as a default outcome gives me everything I've spent back and leads to Visa going after Van's for the costs.
Jonnyb
Well Known Member
In all fairness on one is asking you to. Vans has already stated they will replace any LC Parts. But that’s not your issue.
Your issue is you’re unwilling to replace those parts because the assembly is already built. Although for someone who was an aircraft mechanic for many years this should really be child’s play. Let’s just see what Vans come up with. Hopefully it will be a solution you can work with.
Walt
Well Known Member
That’s not really true, on thin sheets (mostly what RV’s are made from) holes get oversized just from the rivet squeezing/driving process. No way to avoid it.
Not at all.
Drilling out a handful of rivets in an assembly may be child's play, and may lead to no appreciable reduction in structural integrity.
Drilling out almost every single rivet in an assembly, unavoidably enlarging every hole in thin sheet as you go, cannot lead to a satisfactory assembly.
Seeing as I've got plenty of 'scrap' (LCP) pieces here, I've done some experiments. It doesn't matter how perfect your drilling-out technique is, the hole is ~5 thou bigger than it was before it was riveted. It's probably the riveting process that causes this, not the drilling out process. Riveting is not an infinitely repeatable process on the same components.
Last edited:
Jonnyb
Well Known Member
So are we saying these things can’t be repaired? If we follow that through to is logical conclusion. Vans are going to have to replace any assembly with a laser cut part in it. QB or SB.
That’s clearly unrealistic. Boeing and Airbus wouldn’t do it.
Jonnyb
Well Known Member
I seem to remember a post on here a while ago where an RV had hit a bird on the leading edge. The whole leading edge skin was replaced. Are we now to think that this RV is not airworthy after its repair?
Skins and ribs are replaced on aircraft all the time. It’s clearly not an easy job for an inexperienced individual, but for an experienced RV builder is shouldn’t pose huge issues.
For me, I'm absolutely planning on replacing the LCP in my completed assemblies. While I am leaning toward replacing the wing skins as well, I'll certainly reuse the spars, etc. For the skins, it is a personal decision that drilling and replacing every hole exceeds what I'm comfortable with for rework, and given my amateur skill level will likely result in a less-than-desired final quality. Even section 5 advocates for discretion when deciding to replace a rivet.
That said, I'm not even sure how I would match drill new ribs under a dimpled skin before dimpling them... so I think skin replacement will be required.
I'm concerned about two main things. First, I think Vans is putting time and effort into a testing program that I don't care about which could be spend instead on communication and replacement. I know their punch press can only run so fast, but they could absolutely have the ordering website up to at least know how many parts to punch! Second, if their testing leads a bunch of people to keep LCP, I think (my opinion) that these planes will be nearly unsellable, and Vans reputation will take a brutal hit. More than the cost, I think that being known as the "airplane company with cracked parts" is the real existential threat. Like others, I've got a lot of money in this, and want Vans to survive and do well! But if they can barely convince those of us who've spent tens of thousands of dollars, how do you think they'll convince the next customer?
Last edited:
Walt
Well Known Member
Repairs and total rebuilding are different things, so it depends.
Pretty sure B/AB don’t use too much .020 or .032 as primary structure.
2theskyy
Well Known Member
Lots of good points and lots of mud slinging going on.
My one point that I’ll say again. When Vans says to “build on” and builders make that individual decision to do so. Just please document it in the logs so future conditional inspectors and purchasers can make decisions based off of your decision. That is one action that ties all aviation together.
Items must be documented for good reason.
Your passengers will already have the big “experimental” to warn them.
My one point that I’ll say again. When Vans says to “build on” and builders make that individual decision to do so. Just please document it in the logs so future conditional inspectors and purchasers can make decisions based off of your decision. That is one action that ties all aviation together.
Items must be documented for good reason.
Your passengers will already have the big “experimental” to warn them.
Well, you fly in that aircraft if you want to.
But know that none of the rivets holding that leading edge skin on meet spec. Every single hole is larger than spec. Unavoidably so, as a result of being riveted the first time.
Would I accept that on a repair? Maybe, weighed up against replacing the whole wing - my risk, my cost. Would I accept is as 'good as new' on the aeroplane I'm building now because the supplier screwed up, no.
As I said before, QB folks have a more straightforward situation. Return it, unacceptable, money back.
But know that none of the rivets holding that leading edge skin on meet spec. Every single hole is larger than spec. Unavoidably so, as a result of being riveted the first time.
Would I accept that on a repair? Maybe, weighed up against replacing the whole wing - my risk, my cost. Would I accept is as 'good as new' on the aeroplane I'm building now because the supplier screwed up, no.
As I said before, QB folks have a more straightforward situation. Return it, unacceptable, money back.
Walt
Well Known Member
Why do you suppose an aircraft with damage history has a lower value than one without?
To be honest, I don't think it's solely up to Van's anyway. My gut feeling is that even if Van's says "nothing to worry about, build on", the LAA (and whatever regulating body operate in the US) might have something to say, and could very well not approve the parts regardless of Van's stance. It's not just the builders they need to convince.
Jonnyb
Well Known Member
What I’m trying to get across is that it’s not out of the question for Vans to expect some level of manufacturing ability among its builders. So that they can effect satisfactory repairs to assemblies when required. Just recently we have the SB about cracks in the horizontal stabiliser rear spar. If the spar needed replacing all the spar/skin rivets had to be drilled out. No one is saying the stabiliser is now not airworthy and should be scrapped. It can be rebuilt with a new spar, even if the holes in the skin are nowslightly over size.
Now in some cases it won’t be possible to effect a repair, and the assembly will have to be changed. But those instances should be very few.
Surely we can’t expect vans to replace complete assemblies because there might be a laser cut part in it?
Maybe it’s just me!
Now in some cases it won’t be possible to effect a repair, and the assembly will have to be changed. But those instances should be very few.
Surely we can’t expect vans to replace complete assemblies because there might be a laser cut part in it?
Maybe it’s just me!
@jonnyb, haven’t you said that you have spent over 2 years on the empennage?
bkc3921
Well Known Member
Been wanting to ask this question for a month..
If I missed this over 94 pages of comments and 150K views, I apologize, but I really would like to know:
What does the REAL Van...Richard VanGrunsven...have to say about this? I realize (or believe) he's semi-retired, and is somewhat away from everyday operations, but it's still his company, his name, and his reputation on the line here.
Although I don't really believe it will come to pass, I admit some of these comments using the word "bankrupt" has me a little spooked.
With all due respect to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hughes, maybe it's time to see what the "Big Dog" has to say on this issue.
If I missed this over 94 pages of comments and 150K views, I apologize, but I really would like to know:
What does the REAL Van...Richard VanGrunsven...have to say about this? I realize (or believe) he's semi-retired, and is somewhat away from everyday operations, but it's still his company, his name, and his reputation on the line here.
Although I don't really believe it will come to pass, I admit some of these comments using the word "bankrupt" has me a little spooked.
With all due respect to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hughes, maybe it's time to see what the "Big Dog" has to say on this issue.
Until you get the first DAR who won't issue an AW certificate to a plane built with these parts...which, as some DARs here are all too willing to tell us all too often, is perfectly within the authority of a DAR, who can make any rule he wants if he thinks it's for safety.
DAR
DAR in this case would not be making a rule but would be requiring a reasonable workmanship standard.
A much earlier post stated that the FAA decades ago determined that lazer cutting was not acceptable unless the heat affected area was removed by mechanical means Vans has a lot of explaining to do as to why they ever got involved in this.
DAR in this case would not be making a rule but would be requiring a reasonable workmanship standard.
A much earlier post stated that the FAA decades ago determined that lazer cutting was not acceptable unless the heat affected area was removed by mechanical means Vans has a lot of explaining to do as to why they ever got involved in this.
This is no longer true. Google “Laser cut aerospace” and you will find lots of folks using lasers to cut parts. It would appear that the Sonex folks make extensive use of laser cut parts.
I'm probably wrong, but I'm not aware of other applications which both have limited or no mechanical removal of the HAZ (even undersized holes only ream out a few thou) and are then dimpled, with the strain imposed by that process.
It seems Vans agrees; they're not planning on further laser use for dimpled or structural parts. That's another reason why the focus on testing ahead of other remediation steps seems odd - this isn't to clear all future production, but only for the subset of affected kits which have assemblies completed to such an extent that rework is prohibitive. I wonder if the majority of shipped LCP are already assembled or if they are on shelves... but without communication and the web portal, I'm sure Vans doesn't know either.
Looking at those dimples holes, one can conclude that the deburring process has been omitted. Also, no match drilling or reaming was attempted. Those laser cut holes did not have the “notch” some are talking about. You can clearly see the other “feature” as the OP noted. There are a bunch of subtle little clues hiding in each one of these holes.
I think EASA and some of the world’s other aviation governing bodies are the folks Van’s is trying to appeal to with this testing. The FAA will be the most relaxed regarding the subject. FAA might very well not like the decision to put these things in the air though too?
To put this problem into a few words, it is important in the aerospace world to have a manufacturing process that can provide consistent results. I’m not saying it’s impossible to do that with laser cutting holes but it would clearly take a high level of QC. Now the problem is we are left with a near infinite variation of quality.
Brantel
Well Known Member
Van’s became employee owned several years ago.
KatanaPilot
Well Known Member
New SB
Surprised that no one has mentioned the newly released Service Bulletin (SB-00043) for the RV10 and 14 elevators. Apparently cracks are appearing around the rivets (dimpled holes) on some skins. So I guess these kind of cracks are bad, although we may find out that cracks forming from dimpling LCP are ok.
Not the kind of news anyone wants right now and my airplane is at paint.
Surprised that no one has mentioned the newly released Service Bulletin (SB-00043) for the RV10 and 14 elevators. Apparently cracks are appearing around the rivets (dimpled holes) on some skins. So I guess these kind of cracks are bad, although we may find out that cracks forming from dimpling LCP are ok.
Not the kind of news anyone wants right now and my airplane is at paint.
- Status
