Video: Van's Engineering Laser-Cut Parts Detailed Analysis and Results

[spatsch]

An LCP crack should not progress past it's original length. If it does, it should be treated as any other (fatigue) crack and stop drilled.Also, certainly communicate with Vans about the finding. After what I saw at the factory, I think if you find one of these you should go by a lottery ticket, as I don't think it should occur in our lifetime.

I'm also not so certain that cracks are caused by lack of deburring. As a DAR I have seen more than a few metal airplanes that weren't deburred at all, and they aren't seeing any problems. I think if a fatigue crack is going to occur, it's going to occure whether or not the hole was deburred. Perhaps it happens faster, I don't know.

Again, continue with best practices, and we will all keep inspecting for cracks, as we have always done. Some are corrected by stop drilling, and others may need doublers. It happens in both the certified world and our amateur-built world.

Vic

I think I like your answer but just to make sure I got it let me boil it down to two prescriptive statements.

Case A: Crack only at the ridge of the dimple during inspection ==> ignore
Case B: Crack through the base of the dimple ==> follow standard crack mitigation techniques

Does that describe the essence of your comment above or am I misrepresenting/missing something ?

If above doesn't capture it which inspection procedure for an airplane you didn't build and don't know the LCP status of would you suggest.

Oliver

 

[spatsch]

If you keep that in mind, then the graph with the error bars (also attached a screenshot of that below) basically says that LCP are superior from a fatigue point of view.

With the limited sample size they processed I don't see how you can claim superior. To me this looks like statistically equvialent which is what they said in the video. I think you would need a much larger sample size than they showed in the video to claim superior.

Oliver

 

[AeroEngineer]

With the limited sample size they processed I don't see how you can claim superior. To me this looks like statistically equvialent which is what they said in the video. I think you would need a much larger sample size than they showed in the video to claim superior.

Fair enough. But I, for one, was impressed by the sample size.

 

[Bullpup]

Fair enough. But I, for one, was impressed by the sample size.

You are correct; I had drawn incomplete conclusions based on the single frame shown on the first page of this thread. Upon watching the video I've removed that statement - my apologies.

Even in (occasional) disagreement, this type of community learning is exactly why I chose an RV for my project. Thank you all for your inputs.

 

[Mark Dickens]

I’ve remained quiet on this subject while I got educated. I’ve been to Vans and seen the testing and data firsthand. It’s amazing what they have done, and have been doing for some time. At the same time they had it verified by a third party and the testing results overlapped each other. That was the epiphany for me. If I were building an RV right now, depending upon where I was in the process, I would have no problem putting the LCP replacement parts from Vans on the shelf and just keep building. If I were at a stage where they were
easy to replace then I might be tempted to replace them.

I honestly don’t think LCP parts in the aircraft are going to make any difference in the life of the aircraft, certainly not in our lifetime or perhaps even the next. My experience from building, flying, and working on RV’s over many, many years has shown me that there are other areas that will rise to the top before the LCP issue does. Overall, the fleet is very young. Vans has done a bang up job of issuing SB’s over their history, and I would expect that to continue.

All of us are responsible for ensuring our aircraft are in a condition for safe operation. I’m sure we will be watching for cracks in the future just as we have been in the past. If LCP parts begin to show fatigue cracks, I’m sure it will be reported.

From what I saw I sincerely doubt anyone alive now will see a crack perpetuated from an LCP part.


I don’t think the guidance has changed on best practices around building metal aircraft. What we have learned is that all cracks aren’t equal and do not have the same impact.

I know not everyone is ever going to be happy with the conclusion. That’s your prerogative. But I’d like to think I have earned some credibility in this industry that when I tell you something is not a problem, it’s not a problem.

Many of you have lost valuable building time due to the LCP issue. I understand that. Now, I would encourage you to get 2024 off to a running start and get your dream moving again. There’s a reason we have such a large RV community. The airplanes themselves are fantastic, but it is the memories you are going to build and the new friends you are going to meet once you are flying that makes it so rewarding. The sooner you get there the more fun you are going to have.

I know. I’ve been there and am still there. It’s a blast,

Vic

I echo Vic's thoughts. I'm not smart enough to be an engineer. I'm just a business man. I didn't watch the long video because it would be the same as a dog watching TV, but I'll say I trust Vans engineering and always have. The fact that they took the time to produce that video and explain in detail their findings to people who could understand what they were saying was all I needed to see. Perhaps you could quibble with some of the wording here and there, but substantially, I don't doubt any of it. If they can get their business re-organized and under control, and start shipping some product, I'll be very happy to start writing checks again! Come on, Vans, let's get 'er done!

 

[spatsch]

Fair enough. But I, for one, was impressed by the sample size.

I am impressed by the amount of work they put in too and believe it's good enough to support their claims but the problem is that if you want to make conclusive claims about the max or min of a distribution you need A LOT of samples.

Oliver

 

[rocketman1988]

How About

"...Your assurances aren’t going to factor in on my decision making...."

How about the test data and engineer's assurances?

 

[deMan]

Stats class

I am impressed by the amount of work they put in too and believe it's good enough to support their claims but the problem is that if you want to make conclusive claims about the max or min of a distribution you need A LOT of samples.

Oliver

You actually might not need as many samples as you think. The key is to have a “statistically significant” amount. If I remember my stats class from college correctly you can do math that computes how many samples are needed to make sure your result is in a 95/99/whatever % confidence around the real value.

The video didn’t explicitly point this out but I am very confident Vans did that math to make sure their sample size gives them a sufficient confidence interval.

Also remember that most coupons in the photo have 8 rivets so the real sample size is 8x the number of coupons.

Lars

 

[spatsch]

You actually might not need as many samples as you think. The key is to have a “statistically significant” amount. If I remember my stats class from college correctly you can do math that computes how many samples are needed to make sure your result is in a 95/99/whatever % confidence around the real value.

The video didn’t explicitly point this out but I am very confident Vans did that math to make sure their sample size gives them a sufficient confidence interval.

Also remember that most coupons in the photo have 8 rivets so the real sample size is 8x the number of coupons.

Lars

We were arguing about min not 99% tile. I guess we are off on a tangent at this point as we agree on that they can support what they said... . Even for 99% tile the required samples size for a given level of confidence depends on the type of the distribution. I have no idea what type of distribution this would be as the data wasn't shared. Maybe that's well understood by aeronautical engineers so somebody can enlighten me.

If somebody would do a study like this in my field of work they would submit it to a scientific journal or conference to get it peer reviewed and published which would likely answer all those questions as you wouldn't get it published otherwise. I guess that isn't done in experimental aviation ... .

Oliver

 

[rmarshall234]

"...Your assurances aren’t going to factor in on my decision making...."

How about the test data and engineer's assurances?

I’m sorry, but the answer is still no. Not in this world, they all have too much to protect. It’s like Boeing saying just trust us. The reality is, I’ll just avoid the issue completely and spend my time on something else, there is a high demand for A&P services. I may be wrong and again, not try to stir the pot, but I think peeps that are facing this critical go / no-go decision on their projects deserve to hear both sides of the argument.

 

[Cholley6]

Feels like there is a Flat Earth joke here somewhere...

 

[KeithO]

Feels like there is a Flat Earth joke here somewhere...

Name calling is bad form. Im hoping the moderators delete your post.

I have been an engineer too for a long time. The product we work on also consists of thin material and welding, not riveted. And high heat (exhaust systems, DOC, DPF ECR etc as per post 2012 diesel emissions standards). Yes, simulation, FEA, coupon tests etc are ways to try to get a handle on risk, but for sure the best thing a builder can do is replace his parts with NON LCH ones. Of course Vans knows that many of the parts are already embedded in assemblies and this work was done in preparation for the lawsuits to come from people who do not want to continue with LCH parts in their airframes.

I think Vans is digging a grave for themselves with this issue. The problem is that wear and fatigue in a riveted airframe is not that easy to predict. Yes they have run standard joint configurations but in the airframe the load case can vary. Especially if the tension on the skin is slightly different on each builders airframe. Thus the best case scenario is to avoid built in cracks in the first place.

Its very likely that time in the field if we imagine 10+ years down the line that there may be numerous unaccounted for failure modes in the parts of the aircraft having these fractured parts. They may not be catastrophic, they only have to be bad enough to require remediation. Suddenly the airworthiness of the fleet is called into question. One can be virtually guaranteed that no-one will be able to prove whether or not their airframe is or is not impacted unless your airworthiness date is long before or after this disaster. Owners facing substantial cost or time commitment to replace failing structure in their airplanes. Worst for non builder owners who have to pay an A&P to potentially do the work. How many non builders own RVs today ? Plenty Im sure.

Especially as RVs get sold and owners are not the original builders. This LCH issue is going to cost owners a lot of money way down the line and will undermine the reputation once had by Vans.

 

[Aiki_Aviator]

My own thoughts....

I have no skin in the game, my RV-10 is already flying, however I feel it is important to put things into perspective, at least from my point of view should it help anyone else.

I have read through all of this, and other, threads and watched the "long" video as well. All I can say is that anyone that calls out from the sidelines, without going to Vans and working through the details with them should really not make assumptions associated with possible scenarios on which there is no evidence.

Is there a possibility that this is all a "coverup"???? Yes. Possible... Likely???? I would say based on the history of this organisation, of Van putting his name to it... and the work that has gone into proving these issues through testing and scrutiny of Aeronautical engineers and third parties... I think it is pretty evident that this is highly unlikely and it is structurally sound.

If anyone wants to cast a dispersion, they should go to Vans and get the data, work the problem and "PROVE" that the information is incorrect before they "guess" at possibilities years down the road....

I look at these things in Black and White in an attempt to make sense of things.

In this case look at it like this.... I am not an engineer, and definitely not a aeronautical specialist engineer, and have needed to trust in Vans in the engineering of a PLANE..... forget the details of each rivet, but in the baseline that the plane they designed is safe... Now if I trust at the basic plane level, then why would I then question the veracity of the detailed level. Detail so low that it is required to form part of the the structure and the whole aircraft design. This would be after it has also been rigorously tested and presented to industry specialists, only then to question its accuracy with no data to support my argument.

To me that is just not logically sound or rational. I either trust them, or I don't. My baseline faith that the Aircraft is Safe is in the legacy that Vans wants to leave behind on this industry, and in his pride at a what he has been able to achieve. I have met the man and in that I trust the man.

The science, independently, has been effectively proven, and yet people with no data or science to prove otherwise are stating that this is "dodgy". Really??

I suggest that if you believe that this is a problem, then prove it wrong. Please, it would be of benefit. In the words of Matt Damon, "Science the **** out of it". Otherwise, anything said to the contrary would just be a guess.

You would not accept this if Vans did that, made statements with no facts, guessed at the safety of these parts.... so why should we accept or even listen to any argument to the contrary without demonstratable data...

Just my 0.02 worth. Take it how you like....

 

[Jonnyb]

I’m sorry, but the answer is still no. Not in this world, they all have too much to protect. It’s like Boeing saying just trust us. The reality is, I’ll just avoid the issue completely and spend my time on something else, there is a high demand for A&P services. I may be wrong and again, not try to stir the pot, but I think peeps that are facing this critical go / no-go decision on their projects deserve to hear both sides of the argument.

I really struggle with attitudes like this.

"It’s like Boeing saying just trust us."

That's exactly what it's like, and even now Boeing do exactly that. So do all engineers, parachute riggers, and A&Ps, everyone in fact. Everytime you work on an aircraft, every time you rig someone's parachute, you are asking your customers to trust you. From the pilots you sit behind on your next commercial fight, to the people that built your toaster. We trust them to do their jobs.

Now some are saying I don't trust Vans as it's in their interest to be right. When Boeing built the 787 they did their own engineering analysis on the carbon fibre fuselage (never done before in commercial aviation) and asked you to trust them. When Airbus built the A380 and the wings started cracking, Airbus did their own engineering analysis and asked us to trust them. Same with the rudder issues on early 737s and the skins on A350s, cargo doors on DC-10s, batteries on Teslas. The list is endless.

Yet you don't trust Vans, who have employed an outside engineering firm to undertake testing, who then presented their findings to the FAA, LAA, EASA, Kitplanes Magazine, the great and the good of the experimental world, in fact anyone who will listen.

And this lack of trust is not based on any objective information, no engineering analysis, nothing.

In light of the lack of trust some people have in Vans, I have to ask why are they even here? If you don't trust Vans engineers what are you building their aircraft? Why are you even entertaining the idea?

I think Vans is digging a grave for themselves with this issue. The problem is that wear and fatigue in a riveted airframe is not that easy to predict. Yes they have run standard joint configurations but in the airframe the load case can vary. Especially if the tension on the skin is slightly different on each builders airframe. Thus the best case scenario is to avoid built in cracks in the first place.

Are you kidding with this statement? How long have riveted airframes been flying? Late 1930s? so nearly 90 years. Extensive research, undertaken by some of the brightest minds known to man, has been undertaken in the area of fatigue in airframes. There's a huge amount of data out there. Vans themselves have undertaken research to the point that they can point to the most highly loaded rivet on the airframe, tell you exactly the loading on it, and pretty much to the hour of when it will fail.

They took a wing, utterly destroyed the internal structure, loaded it to 4.4G equivalent, and it still stayed together to the point you could fly it home. I think it's worth just taking that on board, and then thinking about slight differences in tension on a RV skin, and what difference that would make.

Im sorry I've gone on a bit of a rant, but when people come out with "I don't trust Vans". Really? Come on!

 

[PhatRV]

If somebody would do a study like this in my field of work they would submit it to a scientific journal or conference to get it peer reviewed and published which would likely answer all those questions as you wouldn't get it published otherwise. I guess that isn't done in experimental aviation ... .

Oliver

No, it isn't done in any aerospace companies, or other certificate airplane companies. All these engineering studies are proprietary. The companies have their in house engineering doing the analysis, testing, reviews. In some cases, they bring in outside consultants to double check, sometime the customer asked for outside consultants but everything is proprietary. In my field of work, these are almost never shared publicly.

In the Kitplane panel, you have two very experience former NASA guys, one really experienced GA aircraft designer/engineer, and one very experienced EAB person who inspected countess airframes, all confirming the veracity of the testing. The NASA people are notorious for asking people to do more analysis and testing beyond engineering acceptable and yet they are confident of Vans methodology and results. Same with the other two people. Some people will disagree. That always happened in real life. As mentioned in the Kitplane panel, there was always somebody who disagreed with the engineering analysis but they must backup with other engineering data. In the end, in my industry, we take the votes of the "gray beards" and the senior staff for their approvals. It was not majority win, it was almost everybody agree before moving forward, and then we asked the people who disagree to provide back up material next time. I sat into many design reviews, preliminary reviews a critical reviews, with this amount of analysis and testing, everybody in the industry will vote to move into production.

 

[Cholley6]

My Gameplan

Let me say, I do have skin in the game. I am building a SB -10, my emp kit has a few LCP parts, not many. It is also nearly complete, but when Van's came out saying there could be a problem with the LCP parts I paused building. I received my wing kit sometime in '22, it has lots of LCP in it. But as I am a seasonal builder I hadn't started on it yet. I decided this whole thing would take time to work itself out, and I would try to refrain from speculation and panic until it did. I tried to avoid doing anything that I might need to re do later. I didn't tear anything down, nor build anything up that contained LCP.

So I could continue working with the thought LCP could be the problem we all feared it to be I started working on my tanks instead. In fact I ordered, at full retail, punched replacement parts for the tanks. I'm nearly done with those (my work is seasonal so most of my airplane time is in the winter.) I'm hoping to get my fuse kit and work on it next, so I can continue to drag my feet a bit on the rest of the wing.

I'll come back to the wings when I run out of everything else. Most likely I'll replace the parts Van's offers for free because I haven't built them into structure yet, why not? I will then re inspect all the blue parts as I go, there very well might be some that I just can't bring myself to put into the airframe. I'm thinking more an issue of fit than one of strength. Those I'll purchase and replace with the discount.

I trust the engineering that has been done, again why not? I trust the A&P that did the prebuy on my 53 year old 172, and maintains it, I trust the engineers that designed and built it way back when. I trusted my CFI to teach me to operate said aircraft. I think we need to get back to trusting people that have spent their life's work learning how to solve a problem. My business would fall apart if I chose to not trust the work that others have done, just because it's not what my gut told me. But because it is my business just like it is my airplane, I am the one that chooses to use their information to make decisions. In my case I will follow their guidance, and keep my options open if I see something that I'm not comfortable with.

Others still may not feel comfortable, that is fine. Purchase the replacement parts or sell your kits and order new ones instead. But when the engineers test the issue, show their methods, bring in other's to review it, hire others to check their work, and come to a conclusion, why not trust them?

 

[rocketman1988]

I’m sorry, but the answer is still no. Not in this world, they all have too much to protect. It’s like Boeing saying just trust us. The reality is, I’ll just avoid the issue completely and spend my time on something else, there is a high demand for A&P services. I may be wrong and again, not try to stir the pot, but I think peeps that are facing this critical go / no-go decision on their projects deserve to hear both sides of the argument.

Yes, they need to hear both sides of the argument, however, one side is based on engineering and test data...the other side is rooted in emotion.

As an engineer, I will stand with the data.

 

[Bullpup]

Yes, they need to hear both sides of the argument, however, one side is based on engineering and test data...the other side is rooted in emotion.

As an engineer, I will stand with the data.

I've made this point before, but given the comprehensive test program, it is baffling to me that Van's won't go the final paperwork step and issue an update to section 5 which clearly outlines:

• Which parts are acceptable if they have cracked dimples (primary vs secondary structure)
• How big/how many cracks are acceptable
• Revise the existing language to remove incompatibilities with the current guidance

I'm sure to some this seems obvious, but for a 1st time builder with limited oversight, reference to sec 5 and the MIL STD are what gives me confidence. I'd certainly be more comfortable with my investment if I didn't have these remaining questions.

 

[lr172]

Highly doubtful.

As an example, in the early 2000's the Zodiac CH 601 XL and CH 650 airplanes exhibited aileron flutter and design strength issues leading to several fatal accidents. The FAA did an in-depth review of the design and worked with the Zenith to affect design changes. What the FAA did was issue a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) and halted the issuance of new airworthiness certificates until the safety related issues were addressed.

Below is a link to the FAA's January 2010 Special Review Team report. Note what the FAA says about type-certificated aircraft versus experimental amateur-built aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/Zodiac.pdf

From the Conclusions:

"The FAA has taken steps to notify the public of the safety related issues with this design and called for owners and operators to make modifications to their aircraft as proposed by the manufacturer. On November 7, 2009, the FAA issued SAIB CE-10-08 to inform owners and operators of potential safety issues with the CH 601 XL and CH 650. The FAA also issued an action November 12, 2009 to cease issuance of new airworthiness certificates until the safety related issues are addressed. Concurrently, AMD issued a safety directive for the S-LSA versions of the CH 601 XL and CH 650 to address the situation and to communicate details of modifications required before further flight. Zenith Aircraft also communicated similar information to owners and operators of experimental versions of the CH 601 XL and CH 650.
......

With type-certificated aircraft, airworthiness standards play an important role in establishing an acceptable level of safety. The special review team recognizes that if this were a 14 CFR part 23 type-certificated aircraft, it is likely the FAA would have taken airworthiness directive action to address an unsafe condition. Similarly, the consensus standards play an important role in establishing an acceptable level of safety for S-LSA aircraft. Manufacturer’s safety directives are used to address S-LSA safety issues.

However, with experimental amateur-built aircraft, the aircraft’s design need not meet either airworthiness or consensus standards. Instead, the operating limitations play an important role in establishing the appropriate level of safety for these aircraft. Without design standards for amateur-built aircraft, it is difficult to determine whether in-service airworthiness concerns warrant FAA action."
​

And we have seen this specifically with Vans. 15 years ago, the NTSB investigated an accident involving the folding nose gear leg issue. They blamed it on too small of a clearance at the threaded portion of the leg where it protrudes through the fork. They stated that when the leg flexes to a certain point under higher than normal NGL deflection (i.e. landing on or slamming down the NGL), that protrusion touches the ground and grabs, then game over (i.e. leg coils/folds followed by flipping). No grounding or other ramifications. Vans revised the design to provide more clearance and an SB was issued with remediation options. I had an old kit and had to buy a new fork and send my leg to langair for cutting and re-threading.

The FAA really doesn't have a process to ground EAB kit classes. All of their regs and policies are related to type certificates and possibly to aircraft manufacturers. Vans is NOT a manufacturer nor holds a type certificate (excluding the 12). The type certificates ensure each plane is fundamentally the same and therefore one or two failures can point to a flaw likely to be seen again. This simply does not apply to EAB, where we are not strictly following ANYTHING. We are free to change just about anything in the kit. Likely all the FAA could do is apply pressure to Vans and issue notices to owners. This is why they force you to put a statement in the plane for passengers, warning them that your aircraft is not standard and doesn't follow all of the safety protocols enforced on those planes. They want passengers to understand the risk that this is not a boeing and the FAA is not looking over things on their behalf.

 

[vic syracuse]

I've made this point before, but given the comprehensive test program, it is baffling to me that Van's won't go the final paperwork step and issue an update to section 5 which clearly outlines:


I'm sure to some this seems obvious, but for a 1st time builder with limited oversight, reference to sec 5 and the MIL STD are what gives me confidence. I'd certainly be more comfortable with my investment if I didn't have these remaining questions.

So most likely that will happen, but be patient and give them time. Right now they are working through bankruptcy, trying to ship kits and parts to everyone, along with this LCP issue that has been a huge time sink. Updates to the manuals may take some time.

Vic

 

[lr172]

I

In light of the lack of trust some people have in Vans, I have to ask why are they even here? If you don't trust Vans engineers what are you building their aircraft? Why are you even entertaining the idea?



!

I have been saying this for the last 5 months. Sadly, no one listens. You are simply not going to convince some of these folks. Best to just ignore them. I certainly gave up.

I was encouraged by this thread that lots of folks seem to be accepting the testing data and the conclusions drawn from it. The marketing guy inside of me still wants to slap someone for not doing it in August.

Larry

 

[Aut]

I am impressed with the presentation Van's put together and the panel that discussed their experience seeing what Van's has done. It is very interesting how varied the punched parts are in their performance whereas the laser cut parts are much more predictable on failure times. Given this wealth of information and the verification from third parties to support the findings I am nearly certain that I am going to keep building with the laser cut parts as the risk looks extremely minimal.

 

[greghughespdx]

We've updated the original post on this thread to include a link to some of the commonly asked questions and answers submitted to our engineering team. We are collecting questions during January and will continue to post Q&A for the more common questions for the next couple of weeks.

 

[abuura]

Name calling is bad form. Im hoping the moderators delete your post.

I have been an engineer too for a long time. The product we work on also consists of thin material and welding, not riveted. And high heat (exhaust systems, DOC, DPF ECR etc as per post 2012 diesel emissions standards). Yes, simulation, FEA, coupon tests etc are ways to try to get a handle on risk, but for sure the best thing a builder can do is replace his parts with NON LCH ones. Of course Vans knows that many of the parts are already embedded in assemblies and this work was done in preparation for the lawsuits to come from people who do not want to continue with LCH parts in their airframes.

I think Vans is digging a grave for themselves with this issue. The problem is that wear and fatigue in a riveted airframe is not that easy to predict. Yes they have run standard joint configurations but in the airframe the load case can vary. Especially if the tension on the skin is slightly different on each builders airframe. Thus the best case scenario is to avoid built in cracks in the first place.

Its very likely that time in the field if we imagine 10+ years down the line that there may be numerous unaccounted for failure modes in the parts of the aircraft having these fractured parts. They may not be catastrophic, they only have to be bad enough to require remediation. Suddenly the airworthiness of the fleet is called into question. One can be virtually guaranteed that no-one will be able to prove whether or not their airframe is or is not impacted unless your airworthiness date is long before or after this disaster. Owners facing substantial cost or time commitment to replace failing structure in their airplanes. Worst for non builder owners who have to pay an A&P to potentially do the work. How many non builders own RVs today ? Plenty Im sure.

Especially as RVs get sold and owners are not the original builders. This LCH issue is going to cost owners a lot of money way down the line and will undermine the reputation once had by Vans.

Regarding your "Suddenly the airworthiness of the fleet is called into question", I was contacted recently by the insurance company that only does direct business, offering to give me a quote on my plane. I filled out their info and received a voicemail -- not an email, that offered coverage but stated "because of the financial issues that Van's is going through...on all the Van's aircraft that are coming to us as new risk we're only offering liability...right now there would be no hull coverage". My 7 was certificated in 2007 and I've had no accidents, incidents, occurences, violations, checkride failures, arrests, DWIs, etc... in my entire career as a pilot.
This could be a warning that years from now any RV from the LCP generation is suspect from the insurance perspective. Regardless of how cynically you view insurance companies' motivations for not avoiding a payout in the event of an accident, engineering issues may turn out to not be our primary concern.

 

[gotyoke]

We've updated the original post on this thread to include a link to some of the commonly asked questions and answers submitted to our engineering team. We are collecting questions during January and will continue to post Q&A for the more common questions for the next couple of weeks.

In the FAQ: "Wings, ailerons, and flaps will require the replacement of Red-labelled/classified components, no alternative solutions will be developed. Service information will be released that provides instructions for replacement and the initial timeline for replacement. This documentation is not required to replace these components, builders can proceed with replacement at their discretion."

I take this to mean the main rib (W-1011-L&R) and flap hinge rib (W-1025B-L&R) secured to the inboard flap hinge bracket (W-1025A) will not have alternative solutions, leaving replacement as the only accepted preventative action. Do I have this correct?

EDIT: Nevermind, the parts I mentioned are yellow, which I now take to mean Van's is still working on an alternative solution.

 

[airguy]

Regarding your "Suddenly the airworthiness of the fleet is called into question", I was contacted recently by the insurance company that only does direct business, offering to give me a quote on my plane. I filled out their info and received a voicemail -- not an email, that offered coverage but stated "because of the financial issues that Van's is going through...on all the Van's aircraft that are coming to us as new risk we're only offering liability...right now there would be no hull coverage". My 7 was certificated in 2007 and I've had no accidents, incidents, occurences, violations, checkride failures, arrests, DWIs, etc... in my entire career as a pilot.
This could be a warning that years from now any RV from the LCP generation is suspect from the insurance perspective. Regardless of how cynically you view insurance companies' motivations for not avoiding a payout in the event of an accident, engineering issues may turn out to not be our primary concern.

So... just to be clear....

The insurance company LITERALLY SAID that it was because of the current financial issues, but you really really want it to be because of the LCP presence (or absence) on the airplane.

 

[abuura]

So... just to be clear....

The insurance company LITERALLY SAID that it was because of the current financial issues, but you really really want it to be because of the LCP presence (or absence) on the airplane.

You are aware that the LCP issue is directly related to Van's financial issues, right? Also, companies the world over are known for making broad statements that seem benign (this one is obviously not, even at face value) and not actually saying what they really mean.
It sounds like I struck a nerve and part of your "full kit on hand" contains LCP. Sorry...

 

[kearney]

Name calling is bad form. Im hoping the moderators delete your post.

I have been an engineer too for a long time. The product we work on also consists of thin material and welding, not riveted. And high heat (exhaust systems, DOC, DPF ECR etc as per post 2012 diesel emissions standards). Yes, simulation, FEA, coupon tests etc are ways to try to get a handle on risk, but for sure the best thing a builder can do is replace his parts with NON LCH ones. Of course Vans knows that many of the parts are already embedded in assemblies and this work was done in preparation for the lawsuits to come from people who do not want to continue with LCH parts in their airframes.

I think Vans is digging a grave for themselves with this issue. The problem is that wear and fatigue in a riveted airframe is not that easy to predict. Yes they have run standard joint configurations but in the airframe the load case can vary. Especially if the tension on the skin is slightly different on each builders airframe. Thus the best case scenario is to avoid built in cracks in the first place.

Its very likely that time in the field if we imagine 10+ years down the line that there may be numerous unaccounted for failure modes in the parts of the aircraft having these fractured parts. They may not be catastrophic, they only have to be bad enough to require remediation. Suddenly the airworthiness of the fleet is called into question. One can be virtually guaranteed that no-one will be able to prove whether or not their airframe is or is not impacted unless your airworthiness date is long before or after this disaster. Owners facing substantial cost or time commitment to replace failing structure in their airplanes. Worst for non builder owners who have to pay an A&P to potentially do the work. How many non builders own RVs today ? Plenty Im sure.

Especially as RVs get sold and owners are not the original builders. This LCH issue is going to cost owners a lot of money way down the line and will undermine the reputation once had by Vans.

respectfully, your statement that

One can be virtually guaranteed that no-one will be able to prove whether or not their airframe is or is not impacted unless your airworthiness date is long before or after this disaster

is a bit simplistic. I can prove that I do not have LCP simply by showing the acquisition date of replacement parts with evidence they were installed. That is what I am doing. It is all about good record keeping that can follow the airframe.

 

[lr172]

Regarding your "Suddenly the airworthiness of the fleet is called into question", I was contacted recently by the insurance company that only does direct business, offering to give me a quote on my plane. I filled out their info and received a voicemail -- not an email, that offered coverage but stated "because of the financial issues that Van's is going through...on all the Van's aircraft that are coming to us as new risk we're only offering liability...right now there would be no hull coverage". My 7 was certificated in 2007 and I've had no accidents, incidents, occurences, violations, checkride failures, arrests, DWIs, etc... in my entire career as a pilot.
This could be a warning that years from now any RV from the LCP generation is suspect from the insurance perspective. Regardless of how cynically you view insurance companies' motivations for not avoiding a payout in the event of an accident, engineering issues may turn out to not be our primary concern.

Well, that particular company has NEVER behaved like all of the other ones. THey routinely quote 4-5 times the market rate for RVs, so no surprise that they take this kind of position, as they dance to their own tune and clearly don't care about the RV market. They are also not very smart; They take time to directly market to you even though they don't want you as a customer. Generally, rates are based upon actuarial tables. A bunch of number crunchers evaluate claim and/or loss/accident data and make projections about how many claims will be made and what it will cost them each year. Rates are then set based upon that data and all the variable involved. No reasonably sane insurance company would stop writing policies on 10-15,000 airplanes just because Vans went into Chap 11 or even if there would be 100 planes with LCPs. Actuarial folks, at least those doing vehicles, do not look at stuff like that, they look at data and it's trends. When the data changes, they change their rates. Several companies make good $ on RVs and no way that changes simply due to recent events. If RVs start falling out of the sky, well that is a different matter. However, the general theme of this thread is that possibility seems QUITE unlikely. And why would they really care? If you find a crack in one of your ribs, it is on you to repair it. Insurance doesn't cover that. Go look at the spar corrosion ADs on the certified planes. I am willing to bet this had zero impact on rates and is WAY scarier than cracks in a dimple rim. There are way scarier threats looming out there and the planes keep getting insured.

No sense stirring the pot with this kind of statement, as it likely has no bearing on the remainder of the industry that covers our fleet.

Larry

 

[airguy]

You are aware that the LCP issue is directly related to Van's financial issues, right? Also, companies the world over are known for making broad statements that seem benign (this one is obviously not, even at face value) and not actually saying what they really mean.
It sounds like I struck a nerve and part of your "full kit on hand" contains LCP. Sorry...

Actually, you have that backward. The financial issues are related to the LCP (from a causative perspective), not the other way around. And the LCP's are only one of several factors contributing to the financial position - the others being the primer issue in the QB's from the QB supplier, the inflation bubble of the last couple years, Vans short-sighted and well-intentioned adherence to "fixed-price" kits with long lead times, and woefully inadequate QC and accounting in place at Vans.

My point on your post is that the insurance provider declining to provide hull coverage has zero to do with LCP's, though you clearly are trying to conflate the two. It was specifically called out by the insurance provider as being due to the current CH 11 proceedings. I understand that you really want to throw mud at Vans about the LCP's, and that's fine - you certainly can do that, and lots of others are as well - but please do not make the statement (which you so clearly implied) that insurance may not be available for aircraft with LCP's. That simply isn't true.