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)

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.
I had the same thought about my built but unflown wings until I saw these words in the SB -

"NOTE: Completion of the modifications in this service bulletin as a preventative measure (prior to cracks being detected) on wings that have been fully assembled is not recommended."
 
Last edited:
RV-6A, 470hrs since 2004, no cracks. None expected with the half rib stiffener already riveted to the other side of that bracket. :)
 
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.


I have a Chevy Volt, and love it.

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.

Nor, should I be expected to cruise past Chevrolet's website daily, in a "just in case" looksee effort.

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.

(The FAA, too, has a website that will send you immediate notices of AD's, Service Bulletins, etc that you can program to alert you as well.)

As others had mentioned, if there had been a timeline given with which to come into compliance, I don't believe there would have been as much heartburn. And, as others have also mentioned, some countries aviation authorities have a much more severe regulatory approach towards flying without complying. Finally, there could still be a financial risk towards the owner regarding insurance coverage, depending on each individual insurer.

You really aren't left with much maneuvering room when left with a "before the next flight" directive and standing there considering your options, at least in my world.

If I was running a company and had something critical like this AND I wanted to get it into the hands of the affected people ASAP, VAF is definitely a resource I would use...among many others, including directly reaching out through the database I ALREADY HAVE ON FILE for each customer who has my product. Because, not every owner can be depended upon coming HERE or to Van's website within the period of time I've mandated.

So, what you consider "whining" I consider to be an observation and a request for Van's to consider upgrading the distribution of obvious, time-sensitive safety information such as this SB in a much more robust fashion than how this was handled.

Again...my 2 cents,

Rob S.
 
Last edited:
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 did the same and found no cracks. My RV-10 has just under 200 hours.
 
Ironic

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.
 
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.
 
SB 16-03-28 Inspection

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

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.
 
RV10
1200 Tach/1400+ hobbs
External inspection no sign of anything. Annual starts this weekend so inside the borescope goes, but it looks good so far.

Is there any sign of what caused this SB, besides the one set of pics in the SB of course?
 
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.

Reading all the "no cracks" posts and looking at the number of hours flown provides good data that the liklihood of finding cracks is pretty small.

Data is always valuable even if people find it not interesting.

Oh, no cracks. RV-7A. 283 hours.
 
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.

If two people post that they have found cracks, and everyone else is silent, how significant is the problem? Do the other 8998 people have cracks, but are being quiet about it because they are afraid they now have airplanes they can't fly, and can't sell? Or are the other 8998 people crack-free?

The more data you collect, the more accurate your conclusions are.
 
If two people post that they have found cracks, and everyone else is silent, how significant is the problem? Do the other 8998 people have cracks, but are being quiet about it because they are afraid they now have airplanes they can't fly, and can't sell? Or are the other 8998 people crack-free?

The more data you collect, the more accurate your conclusions are.

This is one reason why a public poll can be of little use in these situations. Anonymity and blinding is usually helpful when trying to increase response rates for negative results or unpopular views.
 
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.

What is happening here is great, but only as far as those who are here are concerned. There may be thousands of RV owners still unaware, flying blissfully ignorant, as far as we know.

You are indeed right about the "be careful what you ask for" part ...

But one good way to avoid regulation, is to preempt the need by voluntarily taking action. Hate the FAA all you want, the AD/SB/SL process is quite mature and useful. As is the one about car recalls. So don't wait to be forced to do it, look at the what the world is telling you about people's expectations, and act first. In this case, people expect to be notified of such things actively and promptly. Van's has the best information to do this, so why not? (There may be good answers as to why not, in which case it'd be nice to hear them, I'm thinking some liability fear may be at play?).

Spun the other way around: tomorrow someone crashes and dies, and it's found that the cracks/parts in this SB are at fault. the SB was out, but not actively communicated to anybody, the pilot never heard of it. Are you *sure* a jury of your peers, or a judge who knows nothing about the world of experimental, would NOT find Van's responsible in some way? I'm not so sure ... even if you're in the right, it's a painful process to have to go through (See the current case against Van's re: the RV-10 fatalities related to the fuel system).
 
Sounds to me like some people who built their own airplanes would be happier with a production model.

You built an airplane. YOU should have been inspecting every inch of that airplane anyway, and that includes taking off the inspection panel and sticking your cellphone in there for a look at the rear spar.

So Van's gave you a heads up of a potential problem area. Good for them.

But it was my job to already know condition of every inch of that rear spar.
 
IMG_7662-M.jpg

Nothing to see here. Move along. (RV-9A with 252 hours)
 
RV10
1200 Tach/1400+ hobbs
External inspection no sign of anything. Annual starts this weekend so inside the borescope goes, but it looks good so far.

Is there any sign of what caused this SB, besides the one set of pics in the SB of course?

This is a quote of post #43 in the OTHER thread on this SB. Too bad it is kinda buried:

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.

__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
 
.....My 9-A 850 Hrs. No cracks, but I found some other disturbing issues that we will need to address.
I am glad I did this inspection and found them...:eek:
 
Steve,

I agree.

On another note, I posted up a message over on the General Discussion forum to drive folks over here.

I was just killing time on a Saturday night and rarely check this part of VAF. Would have been weeks before I'd seen it otherwise.

Pretty important SB to be buried off the main storefront, so I gave a heads-up.

Rob
Rob, I would like to suggest this would not be a problem for you if you were to just click on the "Today's Posts" button on the top left section of the website. By following the VAF forums this way you will see EVERY post that was submitted regardless of which forum thread it was posted into. Saves you from having to manually navigate to any one particular thread to see new posts.

In my case I monitor EVERY new post from EVERY thread this way. Very helpful as I see many topics I would not normally think about reading.
 
questions about 'the inspection'

so...............questions, before I just stick my arm in there with my cellphone.

#1 - is this assembly completed in a quickbuild wing?

#2 - Is there a 'construction quality' that we should also be looking for?....poorly set rivets, holes not deburred....( not visible tho')

.......or is the crack only possible from heavy repeated loads....whether air or hangar induced!
 
SB 16-03-28

Just came back from the Stanley(CCW4) Airfield.
No cracks found.
RV-4 has 183 hours on her. I don't do aerobatics with her either.
 
QB

yes, this assembly is completed in the (-14) QB wing. I'm fortunate in that I haven't riveted the bottom outb'd skin on yet, so there are no access problems and the rivets can be set with a pneumatic squeezer. For a completed wing, if there were some way the skin could be peeled back or an access panel installed it would make this fix (and subsequent inspections) very straightforward.....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top