Ok, this doesn't look good.
I called today and got hold of a live warm body, told them I wanted to put in a parts order even if it meant paying full list for the parts. I just wanted to order the LCP's for the wing kit, and let the rest of it wait until the dust settles. She said "I'm not sure we can do that, but I'll forward your request to management."
Here I am, a legitimate customer, repeat offender, offering to pay full list to fix their mistake, and I can't get a parts order in.
They are definitely shipping replacement parts out. I mentor a locak RV-12iS project at the high school, and we got ours.
Dave
A friend who is building a 10 said Vans told him he could not get credit for returned LCP parts. This seems to go against their stated return policy. Has anyone got them to give you credit for returned LCP parts?
A friend who is building a 10 said Vans told him he could not get credit for returned LCP parts. This seems to go against their stated return policy. Has anyone got them to give you credit for returned LCP parts?
Are you saying you placed your LCP replacement order in the special portal and received those replacement parts? Or are you talking about random parts ordered through the store? If the former, what communication have you received from Vans? As I understand it, most all of us have been in the dark since selecting parts in the portal.
I expect the answer will be "no". The returns policy states: " Any item returned must be a product Van’s Aircraft currently sells." and these LCP parts are no longer being produced and sold. The returns policy is based on the premise that Van's would re-sell the returned part to another customer but this isn't applicable to LCPs.
People started saying they were going to just return LCPs for credit. I figured Vans would shut the down pretty quickly.
This is not good for the brand and the future of Vans. Other social media platforms are echoing our concerns in a much more direct way. I hope and pray they take proper corrective action soonest.
I expect the answer will be "no". The returns policy states: " Any item returned must be a product Van’s Aircraft currently sells." and these LCP parts are no longer being produced and sold. The returns policy is based on the premise that Van's would re-sell the returned part to another customer but this isn't applicable to LCPs.
And that's where the logic chain turns around and eats it's own tail.
If Van's would not ship these parts to a new customer because they're not good enough, then they can't expect a customer already in possession of them to use them.
As has been demonstrated right here in this thread ad nauseam, it’s irrelevant whether these parts are good enough. “Not in my plane” is not a sentiment Van’s can overcome and certainly not one around which they could manage inventory.
I would think that any part in their inventory that has to be replaced due to being previously produced by laser cutting, would not be available to anyone right now until they have enough inventory to make the affected customers whole again.
Anyone know roughly how many kits that were shipped are affected by LCPs??
I ordered my RV-14A empennage kit in March and picked it up ten days ago. There were a few backordered parts which I received today. Many of them were heat treated so no blue vinyl - and no evidence of laser cuts. But, there were a couple things that I find interesting as a new builder.
First, two of the parts (E-904) were fluted (and heat treated). I didn't realize Vans did any fluting at the factory. These parts were made on 10/6/23 so I doubt if they were returned by somebody else then shipped to me.
The second thing that was odd was the two E-903 parts had some dimpled holes. These were made on 10/3/23 so again, I don't think these were previously returned and dimpled by another builder.
The other thing odd about E-903 aside from the dimpled holes is it absolutely looks like they were heat treated (no blue vinyl and dull finish) but they are not marked as such on the Vans LCP list. No evidence of laser cutting. They are listed as red replacement parts. I think Vans may have missed this one and they should be marked as heat treated.
I ordered my RV-14A empennage kit in March and picked it up ten days ago. There were a few backordered parts which I received today. Many of them were heat treated so no blue vinyl - and no evidence of laser cuts
...the -14A empennage kit I received in January that came loaded with 97 of 101 possible LCPs. <sigh>
Well, if it makes you feel any better, the wing kit I picked up in May has 82 laser cut parts. It's been sitting in my hangar for 5 months collecting dust while I wait for replacement parts. I'm VERY happy I have something to start working on but I suspect I'll be finished with the empennage kit long before I get replacement parts for my wing kit :-(
Thanks for that post Krea.
Though I'm living in another country, on another continent (or is it planet?), I have exactly the same thinking.
I'm a Tech Counselor (build advisor, or whatever it's called in it's respective environment) too, and following >40 years as an A/P, builder, pilot, will not bite to the new vision that parts prone to, or even displaying cracks are ok.
We have plenty of RV builds around here, and I will reject any part where a crack is found in a new build, period.
And so will the builders around here for sure. Most of us build once in their life, are striving for the mythical perfection, and will surely not use any part displaying defects from the onset.
Thanks for that post Krea.
Though I'm living in another country, on another continent (or is it planet?), I have exactly the same thinking.
I'm a Tech Counselor (build advisor, or whatever it's called in it's respective environment) too, and following >40 years as an A/P, builder, pilot, will not bite to the new vision that parts prone to, or even displaying cracks are ok.
We have plenty of RV builds around here, and I will reject any part where a crack is found in a new build, period.
And so will the builders around here for sure. Most of us build once in their life, are striving for the mythical perfection, and will surely not use any part displaying defects from the onset.
Sorry, but you don’t understand the term Airworthy as it plies to E-AB’s. A DAR does not attest to the fact that an aircraft is in a condition for safe operation - the builder does that. I recently spent a week at the FAA academy (where I did actually stay in a Holiday Inn….) going over the rules, and I can assure you that’s the case.
I ordered my RV-14A empennage kit in March and picked it up ten days ago. There were a few backordered parts which I received today. Many of them were heat treated so no blue vinyl - and no evidence of laser cuts. But, there were a couple things that I find interesting as a new builder.
First, two of the parts (E-904) were fluted (and heat treated). I didn't realize Vans did any fluting at the factory. These parts were made on 10/6/23 so I doubt if they were returned by somebody else then shipped to me.
The second thing that was odd was the two E-903 parts had some dimpled holes. These were made on 10/3/23 so again, I don't think these were previously returned and dimpled by another builder.
The other thing odd about E-903 aside from the dimpled holes is it absolutely looks like they were heat treated (no blue vinyl and dull finish) but they are not marked as such on the Vans LCP list. No evidence of laser cutting. They are listed as red replacement parts. I think Vans may have missed this one and they should be marked as heat treated.
EDIT: Greg confirmed the E-903 parts are heat treated.
Paul, please elaborate. I've had FAA and EAA people telling me an E A/B is NEVER airworthy, yet 8130.2J CLEARLY instructs whomever signs off the 8130-6 & 8130-7 that he must find the aircraft to be "airworthy." 8130.2J even defines airworthy -- in the case of non-type-certificated aircraft -- to be simply "in a condition for safe operation."
When I ask what is the purpose of the whole process to get a SAWC (the application, the subsequent inspection of the E A/B, and finally the issuance of the certificate,) if in the end the plane isn't considered "airworthy," I get no sensible answer.
Paul, please elaborate. I've had FAA and EAA people telling me an E A/B is NEVER airworthy, yet 8130.2J CLEARLY instructs whomever signs off the 8130-6 & 8130-7 that he must find the aircraft to be "airworthy." 8130.2J even defines airworthy -- in the case of non-type-certificated aircraft -- to be simply "in a condition for safe operation."
When I ask what is the purpose of the whole process to get a SAWC (the application, the subsequent inspection of the E A/B, and finally the issuance of the certificate,) if in the end the plane isn't considered "airworthy," I get no sensible answer.
Because the FAA doesn’t want to take ultimate authority of experimental airworthiness. You are the only one that can claim it’s airworthy. The DAR can’t determine that it is airworthy but they can determine the aircraft is unsafe and deny an airworthiness certificate. So in essence they can’t say that it is airworthy but they can say it is not airworthy/safe. Clear as mud
I think it's pretty clear. Just follow the liability. Whoever says it's airworthy or in condition of safe operation takes on liability big time. So they push that on the builder not the DAR not the FAA not the kit manufacturer .... .
Oliver
My other question posed yesterday about TBD price continues to go unanswered.
I must be the only one that’s curious about the margins Vans proposes to profit from customers that are replacing blue green LCP.
It's a safe bet they have been trying to calculate the financial impact ever since the "oh sh!t" moment, and I very highly doubt this is a consideration of profit as much as survival and long term sustainability.
Let's look at the big picture. Vans have agreed to replace red and yellow parts.
Add in the cost to rebuild or fix impacted quick build kits.
Then there's a group of builders who are going to throw in the towel and demand a refund. Remember a high percentage of kits never get finished by the original builder and are sold. This is a perfect storm for pushing those on the fence over the edge. However, instead of historically selling the kit they will be looking at Vans for financial recovery because of LCPs.
Then there are discounted parts, TBD blue and green parts, testing costs, cost to build the replacement part portal, investment in new punching equipment, shipping cost considerations, slower than normal sales because people are waiting to see how this shakes out, etc, etc.
Running a small business is hard under the best of circumstances. They have a much larger and more complicated mess they are working through to the best of their ability I'm sure.
Their entire business has been built on providing some of the most affordable and accessible kits in the world. I highly doubt they are trying to gouge anyone, and simply trying to calculate how to keep the the lights on, people employed and keep kits and parts coming out of the building.
Let's look at the big picture. Vans have agreed to replace red and yellow parts.
I don’t understand the drum circle, go fund me, charity attitude to all this. I’m not a taker on that Kool-Aid
The DAR can’t determine that it is airworthy ...
Thank you Vic, for saying what you said. You are the FIRST person with credentials I have heard utter the words "it is airworthy" and I am so thankful that some sanity exists in this new-to-me world of building an E A/B.I've replied to this a couple of times. Of course it is airworthy---you get an Airworthiness Certificate. As you noted, the builder initially signs off that it is in a condition for safe operation, which is defined as airworthy in the Order. Subsequent to that, the aircraft is signed off each year by the holder of the Repairman Certificate or an A&P by a logbook entry stating that it is in a condition for safe operation, OR a simialarly worded statement. The DAR or MIDO/FSDO inspector make an entry that the aircraft meets the requirements for the certificate requested, after the builder makes the condition for safe operation entry in the logbook.
Vic
It's a safe bet they have been trying to calculate the financial impact ever since the "oh sh!t" moment, and I very highly doubt this is a consideration of profit as much as survival and long term viability.
Let's look at the big picture. Vans have agreed to replace red and yellow parts.
Add in the cost to rebuild or fix impacted quick build kits.
Then there's a group of builders who are going to throw in the towel and demand a refund. Remember a high percentage of kits never get finished by the original builder and are sold. This is a perfect storm for pushing those on the fence over the edge. However, instead of historically selling the kit they will be looking at Vans for financial recovery because of LCPs.
Then there are discounted parts, TBD blue and green parts, testing costs, cost to build the replacement part portal, investment in new punching equipment, shipping cost considerations, slower than normal sales because people are waiting to see how this shakes out, etc, etc.
Running a small business is hard under the best of circumstances. They have a much larger and more complicated mess they are working through to the best of their ability I'm sure.
Their entire business has been built on providing some of the most affordable and accessible kits in the world. I highly doubt they are trying to gouge anyone, and simply trying to calculate how to keep the the lights on, people employed and keep kits and parts coming out of the building.
... And they must have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the test program .