Factory Info: Parts with Laser Cut Holes and Potential for Cracks

[rocketman1988]

…and

These Scientists and engineers are not the ones building and therefore applying my or others workmanship standards.
There are many builders that don’t want to except a low bar of good enough or build on.

I tend to agree…but…there has never been, and will never be, a perfect build.

Perfection is an impossibly high bar that can NEVER be reached.

 

[N82VM]

You really don't understand?

I invite you to build a plane with many LCP, and enjoy many acrobatic sessions with family and friends... Would you really do it with complete security and confidence for many years? Pushing the plane close to its G limits, maybe 20 years later?

Engineers are people too and have the right to make mistakes! And they have been wrong in commercial airplanes that pass much more demanding tests!
Leaving safety aside, resale value, aesthetics, not feeling cheated... do you think there are few reasons not to want LCP?

My plane should last many years, I hope my children can continue enjoying it after me... I don't want to start building a plane with defects. Is this so difficult to understand? I only want what I paid for, it's as simple as that.

100% agree, and most accidents/incidents there’s usually several things that combine their powers to create the negative end result. This is why we strive to eliminate as many factors as possible.

I don’t think LCP alone will take it out of the sky, but if it gets together with a few other defective friends it could be a contributing factor.

 

[dmattmul]

Other pics ?

Would the part have cracked under the same circumstances/test parameters if it was a non LC part? Seems to me the entire edge of the LC hole is still in the HAZ which would be more likely to crack from temper. Did they test LC and non LC parts under the same testing parameters? (maybe I missed that).

Surely there must be test pics of existing LCP’s fractures that “grew” under accelerated life testing? Picking and choosing what pics to show has its advantages.

 

[vic syracuse]

I really keep trying to stay out of this, but I still think some of you need to lighten up a little. Vans is not going to give bad advice. Maybe it’s not exactly what each and everyone wants to hear, nor in the timeframe you want, but it is happening.

I wish there was enough room here for me to share all of the pics of horrible workmanship I have seen on flying airplanes over the years. Some were so awful I don’t know how they managed to keep flying. I have seen RV’s with the forward attach points of the horizontal stabilizer not even attached to the longerons and they were doing aerobatics. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve told I want their guardian angel.

Back when I started my RV-4 we still had to have FAA inspectors approve all assemblies before they were closed up. So I took my empennage kit to the Cleveland FSDO for that inspection. The inspector took quite a while looking at it, and it had me a little concerned. When he finished, he looked at me quite seriously and asked if I was building a tank. I didn’t understand what he meant, as that empennage was my only experience in aircraft construction. But I went from there to the airport where I was doing part time flight instruction and took a look at the tail of an aircraft undergoing an annual inspection. Quite candidly, I was shocked at what now appeared to me to be a very flimsy tail on that Cessna. I was glad to be building the RV!

The point is that these RV’s are way overbuilt. Vans has done thorough testing and if the testing has determined a level of acceptability, then we shouldn’t have to fret over it. The example of the wings still meeting limits even after most of the ribs have failed is a good example.

I honestly doubt there is a perfect build anywhere, whether it’s a production built or an amateur-built aircraft. Who hasn’t drilled out a rivet, or drilled a hole off center and somehow fixed it, left it alone, and moved on? More than likely ALL of us fretted over some mistake while building and now that we are flying we can’t even remember the mistakes.

I do understand the frustration of those of you waiting to continue your build. Both from a financial standpoint and from a timing standpoint. This is a major problem for Van’s, and for anyone else who might have a problem just as serious.
Most every company I’ve been around that had had a problem this serious flounders for a while solving it because this is NOT what they are good at. Thankfully. Many of them are just as frustrated with this problem as are you and are having a very difficult time knowing how much they have let their customers down.

Vic

 

[Jack_G_S]

I tend to agree…but…there has never been, and will never be, a perfect build.

Perfection is an impossibly high bar that can NEVER be reached.

I don’t think most of us are trying to reach perfection. I do believe we (myself included) start with a high bar but I have nearly completed an entire SB airframe in under 2 years. That’s hard to do if you are a perfectionist.

What we try to do is follow the best guidance from the most reputable sources. Ultimately even though this isn’t a part 23 aircraft the FAA does offer guidance on this subject and they are the ones issuing the airworthiness certificate.

I see that you are an aeronautical engineer. I’m curious about your interpretation of definitions. Primarily between an aircraft “structure” vs “part” and “primary structure” vs “secondary structure”.

In my opinion Van’s has them way off. It appears to me they are implying the wing is a secondary structure.

 

[Tlrguy]

I really keep trying to stay out of this, but I still think some of you need to lighten up a little. Vans is not going to give bad advice. Maybe it’s not exactly what each and everyone wants to hear, nor in the timeframe you want, but it is happening.

Vic

It’s hard to lighten up Vic. Remember, this issue was brought to Van’s attention long before ever being told to stop. I personally have over 100k wrapped up with a company that can’t even return my phone calls or emails. Three months has elapsed with very few PR announcements to boot.

Think about how painful this would be if your beautiful Hummingbird had fallen to the same situation.

 

[airguy]

I really keep trying to stay out of this, but I still think some of you need to lighten up a little.

Vic, I'm with you on the stance about Vans getting it right eventually - but the near-total lack of communication from Vans is maddening, inexcusable, and is now starting to drive off part of their market.

I'm not sure how Vans intends to handle this - but saying nothing about timelines or paths forward is NOT the way to do it.

 

[rocketman1988]

I don’t think most of us are trying to reach perfection. I do believe we (myself included) start with a high bar but I have nearly completed an entire SB airframe in under 2 years. That’s hard to do if you are a perfectionist.

What we try to do is follow the best guidance from the most reputable sources. Ultimately even though this isn’t a part 23 aircraft the FAA does offer guidance on this subject and they are the ones issuing the airworthiness certificate.

I see that you are an aeronautical engineer. I’m curious about your interpretation of definitions. Primarily between an aircraft “structure” vs “part” and “primary structure” vs “secondary structure”.

In my opinion Van’s has them way off. It appears to me they are implying the wing is a secondary structure.

I am really trying to mostly stay out of this "discussion" because no matter what is said by the engineers, people will make their own choices and trying to changing their minds is fruitless.

The question is if the engineering worst possible test case (unrealistic) shows that the expected lifetime of the structure is 25,000 hours versus 30,000 hours, is the structure airworthy?

You may also want to revisit you thoughts on the FAA A/W certificate; YOU are the one who is stating that the aircraft is airworthy. At best, the FAA will give the aircraft a cursory glance...they are not going to go over every nut and bolt or check every rivet. DAR's may actually give it more of an inspection but that is up to the individual DAR.

I agree with Vic's post, for the most part. It is, however, the builder's choice whether to believe the design engineers and a third party engineering assessment or to believe something else.

 

[Bullpup]

I really keep trying to stay out of this, but I still think some of you need to lighten up a little. Vans is not going to give bad advice. Maybe it’s not exactly what each and everyone wants to hear, nor in the timeframe you want, but it is happening.

I wish there was enough room here for me to share all of the pics of horrible workmanship I have seen on flying airplanes over the years. Some were so awful I don’t know how they managed to keep flying. I have seen RV’s with the forward attach points of the horizontal stabilizer not even attached to the longerons and they were doing aerobatics. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve told I want their guardian angel.

Back when I started my RV-4 we still had to have FAA inspectors approve all assemblies before they were closed up. So I took my empennage kit to the Cleveland FSDO for that inspection. The inspector took quite a while looking at it, and it had me a little concerned. When he finished, he looked at me quite seriously and asked if I was building a tank. I didn’t understand what he meant, as that empennage was my only experience in aircraft construction. But I went from there to the airport where I was doing part time flight instruction and took a look at the tail of an aircraft undergoing an annual inspection. Quite candidly, I was shocked at what now appeared to me to be a very flimsy tail on that Cessna. I was glad to be building the RV!

The point is that these RV’s are way overbuilt. Vans has done thorough testing and if the testing has determined a level of acceptability, then we shouldn’t have to fret over it. The example of the wings still meeting limits even after most of the ribs have failed is a good example.

I honestly doubt there is a perfect build anywhere, whether it’s a production built or an amateur-built aircraft. Who hasn’t drilled out a rivet, or drilled a hole off center and somehow fixed it, left it alone, and moved on? More than likely ALL of us fretted over some mistake while building and now that we are flying we can’t even remember the mistakes.

I do understand the frustration of those of you waiting to continue your build. Both from a financial standpoint and from a timing standpoint. This is a major problem for Van’s, and for anyone else who might have a problem just as serious.
Most every company I’ve been around that had had a problem this serious flounders for a while solving it because this is NOT what they are good at. Thankfully. Many of them are just as frustrated with this problem as are you and are having a very difficult time knowing how much they have let their customers down.

Vic

Vic, respectfully, did any of the poorly built, but still flying, airplanes result in you changing the standard you would build to? After all, it was clearly good enough.

That is what we're being asked to do here. And it comes following a year+ of missteps on the LCP issue, so I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a little more than a few paragraphs and one picture before I change my entire approach to hole preparation and crack prevention.

 

[Jack_G_S]

You may also want to revisit you thoughts on the FAA A/W certificate; YOU are the one who is stating that the aircraft is airworthy. At best, the FAA will give the aircraft a cursory glance...they are not going to go over every nut and bolt or check every rivet. DAR's may actually give it more of an inspection but that is up to the individual DAR.

I see that you dodged the initial question but I understand why.

As for the initial airworthiness, that is a joint responsibility between you and the DAR to ascertain. By mentioning the DAR isn’t going to go over every rivet you come off like others that imply we should try to hide imperfections. Plus they don’t need to inspect every rivet. If he wants to cite AC 23-13a he only needs to find one crack within a primary structure.

I don’t know why people mention that they have seen airplanes flying with poor workmanship and missing parts so we should be equally as reckless. Do they see how that comes off?

 

[Snowflake]

To be honest I doubt that failure of a large portion or maybe even all of the ribs would have significant impact on the strength of the wings, nearly all of the load is in the skin and spars.

The load is indeed taken by the skin and the spars, but they require the ribs to support them and keep them straight. Without the ribs, the skins, and then the spars, would buckle under even moderate flight loads.

 

[N82VM]

I really keep trying to stay out of this, but I still think some of you need to lighten up a little. Vans is not going to give bad advice. Maybe it’s not exactly what each and everyone wants to hear, nor in the timeframe you want, but it is happening.

I wish there was enough room here for me to share all of the pics of horrible workmanship I have seen on flying airplanes over the years. Some were so awful I don’t know how they managed to keep flying. I have seen RV’s with the forward attach points of the horizontal stabilizer not even attached to the longerons and they were doing aerobatics. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve told I want their guardian angel.

Back when I started my RV-4 we still had to have FAA inspectors approve all assemblies before they were closed up. So I took my empennage kit to the Cleveland FSDO for that inspection. The inspector took quite a while looking at it, and it had me a little concerned. When he finished, he looked at me quite seriously and asked if I was building a tank. I didn’t understand what he meant, as that empennage was my only experience in aircraft construction. But I went from there to the airport where I was doing part time flight instruction and took a look at the tail of an aircraft undergoing an annual inspection. Quite candidly, I was shocked at what now appeared to me to be a very flimsy tail on that Cessna. I was glad to be building the RV!

The point is that these RV’s are way overbuilt. Vans has done thorough testing and if the testing has determined a level of acceptability, then we shouldn’t have to fret over it. The example of the wings still meeting limits even after most of the ribs have failed is a good example.

I honestly doubt there is a perfect build anywhere, whether it’s a production built or an amateur-built aircraft. Who hasn’t drilled out a rivet, or drilled a hole off center and somehow fixed it, left it alone, and moved on? More than likely ALL of us fretted over some mistake while building and now that we are flying we can’t even remember the mistakes.

I do understand the frustration of those of you waiting to continue your build. Both from a financial standpoint and from a timing standpoint. This is a major problem for Van’s, and for anyone else who might have a problem just as serious.
Most every company I’ve been around that had had a problem this serious flounders for a while solving it because this is NOT what they are good at. Thankfully. Many of them are just as frustrated with this problem as are you and are having a very difficult time knowing how much they have let their customers down.

Vic

I don’t think that your survey of poorly built aircraft that need guardian angels is a use case for starting off with parts with known failures no matter how “benign”.
Just because someone else’s terrible aircraft still flies doesn’t make any of this ok.

Your mention of overbuilt, it’s why I purchased the kit. I bought into Overbuilt, now it will be Overbuilt minus LCP part factor. It doesn’t matter that I’ll never fly 30,000 hours in a lifetime or that an LCP will make it a 25,000 hour airframe which is an amount I will never achieve either. It’s not what I paid for. Take a gander at the RV-3 through 9 brochure, says PUNCH parts not LCP

Do I think vans is giving bad advice? No but I think they figured in the LCP parts and the math comes out to Overbuilt minus the LCP part factor and it falls within what they deem acceptable. See paragraph above why it’s not ok.

Problem is that I Paid for the full factor of Overbuilt and I’m not getting that. Which means I’m not getting what/why I chose this kit to start with.

LCP was clearly a time/money factor and apparently it’s not good enough to stick with as a process, however they are sticking those of us with the poor judgment to pursue an inferior process.

Vans has actively pursued making these inferior parts “good enough” and making the customer 1) deal with it #buildon or 2) pay extra to get what they paid for in the first place. This is a cost effective (for now) way to deal with this and a poor way to treat current customers and/or create future and repeat business.

I personally did not buy a Vans kit for “good enough” if that’s what I wanted I’d shop kits at Harbor Freight if they had them.

 

[lr172]

You really don't understand?

I invite you to build a plane with many LCP, and enjoy many acrobatic sessions with family and friends... Would you really do it with complete security and confidence for many years? Pushing the plane close to its G limits, maybe 20 years later?

Engineers are people too and have the right to make mistakes! And they have been wrong in commercial airplanes that pass much more demanding tests!
Leaving safety aside, resale value, aesthetics, not feeling cheated... do you think there are few reasons not to want LCP?

My plane should last many years, I hope my children can continue enjoying it after me... I don't want to start building a plane with defects. Is this so difficult to understand? I only want what I paid for, it's as simple as that.

I get all of that and do understand. In order for your plane to not rip to shreds every time you pull 6 G's with your family, you are trusting 100's of metal parts and thousands of fasteners that range from .016" all the way up to .125", with varying alloys of varying strengths. Each one of these parts and fasteners was individually selected by a Vans engineer in order to handle those stress loads. If they got it right, the plane handles the loads and if they didn't, it starts cracking and rips apart. Everyone seems to be going nuts about the crappy and dishonest Vans engineers on this LCP issue, but yet continue to blindly trust the 1000's of other design decisions they made, feeling some absent trust that they are punched and therefore safe. Sorry, but just don't get it. The plane is historically safe and bullet proof due to those 1000's of design decisions, NOT because they were punched instead of Laser cut. If you trust every other decision made by the vans engineering team, I just don't get how you not trust them when they say the LCP parts won't fail. When you fly one of these planes, you have put A LOT of trust into the engineers that spec'ed all the parts. So why is this the only issue where we dont trust them?

I am sure I would feel concerned with seeing all of the cracks and probably would bother me to some degree. But if they told me that the cracks were benign, I would have to trust them. This is no different than me saying those engineers are stupid for specifying .025" 2024 wing skins. Doesn't seem right so I am upgrading to .032" 7075 skins. Where does it end? As you clearly mentioned, you do NOT have the skills to make these decisions. So how are you getting the skills to claim they are wrong on the LCP issue?

I get that you paid for punched parts and want them. But I am not sure that Vans ever gauranteed all of the parts would be punched for you. Maybe they did and they are in the wrong or maybe you just read that on the internet and therefore not a guarantee from Vans.

Larry

 

[lr172]

I see that you dodged the initial question but I understand why.

As for the initial airworthiness, that is a joint responsibility between you and the DAR to ascertain. ?

Incorrect. YOU alone are signing the document stating it is airworthy. No DAR signature involved. He may or may not give an inspection, but IT IS NOT an airworthiness certification. That is provided by your signature. I got my AWC from a FSDO guy. He may have looked at the plane for 10 minutes. He was clear that he didn't care, as it was ME that was signing off on the airworhiness of the aircraft, NOT him. This part he made VERY clear.

 

[SwissVolts]

I get all of that and do understand. In order for your plane to not rip to shreds every time you pull 6 G's with your family, you are trusting 100's of metal parts and thousands of fasteners that range from .016" all the way up to .125", with varying alloys of varying strengths. Each one of these parts and fasteners was individually selected by a Vans engineer in order to handle those stress loads. If they got it right, the plane handles the loads and if they didn't, it starts cracking and rips apart. Everyone seems to be going nuts about the crappy and dishonest Vans engineers on this LCP issue, but yet continue to blindly trust the 1000's of other design decisions they made, feeling some absent trust that they are punched and therefore safe. Sorry, but just don't get it. The plane is historically safe and bullet proof due to those 1000's of design decisions, NOT because they were punched instead of Laser cut. If you trust every other decision made by the vans engineering team, I just don't get how you not trust them when they say the LCP parts won't fail. When you fly one of these planes, you have put A LOT of trust into the engineers that spec'ed all the parts. So why is this the only issue where we dont trust them?

I am sure I would feel concerned with seeing all of the cracks and probably would bother me to some degree. But if they told me that the cracks were benign, I would have to trust them. This is no different than me saying those engineers are stupid for specifying .025" 2024 wing skins. Doesn't seem right so I am upgrading to .032" 7075 skins. Where does it end? As you clearly mentioned, you do NOT have the skills to make these decisions. So how are you getting the skills to claim they are wrong on the LCP issue?

I get that you paid for punched parts and want them. But I am not sure that Vans ever gauranteed all of the parts would be punched for you. Maybe they did and they are in the wrong or maybe you just read that on the internet and therefore not a guarantee from Vans.

Larry

Do you think I only trust engineers? NO!

What really gave me confidence to purchase an RV8 is the 30 years that this model has been flying, and the 50 years that Van's has been building planes.

If they now change the construction method to a clearly inferior one (it is, since they have abandoned it), my confidence is lost. I can't accept it. It's not what I bought and I don't think any of us would buy an airplane knowing these conditions.

 

[N82VM]

I get that you paid for punched parts and want them. But I am not sure that Vans ever gauranteed all of the parts would be punched for you. Maybe they did and they are in the wrong or maybe you just read that on the internet and therefore not a guarantee from Vans.

Larry

Here’s where I read it. https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/3-9FLY-2-19-screen.pdf

The word laser appears exactly ZERO times.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

1. Invest in improving communication with customers.
2. Invest in changing the affected parts at 0 cost.
3. Invest in changing the QB kits of your affected clients.
4. Invest in new machines to increase production the right way.
5. Put all LCP parts and QB kits on sale at cost price. Someone will buy them and cushion the losses.

And for the longer-term:

6. Implement a robust quality assurance *system*, including repetitive on-site vendor inspections, receiving inspections, etc. This includes logging and tracking *all* problem/failure reports from the field, along with processes for identifying systematic failures and resolving them promptly.
7. Implement a modern inventory control and parts tracking system, including at least lot numbers if not serializing each part, so that every component and part going out the door can be traced should an issue come up in the future. Solutions for this have been available for decades.

Had a good QA system been in place from the beginning, this whole debacle could have been avoided or at least limited to a handful of cases. In addition, had a tracking system been in place from the beginning, the much smaller number of affected customers could have been notified and their issues resolved with far, far less impact to the company, the customers, and the client base, in a much shorter time and greatly reduced costs.

If, after all of this, they come out the other end still a viable company and don't put these in place, someday they'll simply go through all of this again.

 

[Jack_G_S]

Incorrect. YOU alone are signing the document stating it is airworthy. No DAR signature involved. He may or may not give an inspection, but IT IS NOT an airworthiness certification. That is provided by your signature. I got my AWC from a FSDO guy. He may have looked at the plane for 10 minutes. He was clear that he didn't care, as it was ME that was signing off on the airworhiness of the aircraft, NOT him. This part he made VERY clear.

Your description seams to differ from the FAA’s

 

[Strikhedonia]

Many companies go through management changes leading to a change from an engineering focus to a marketing/sales focused which leads to a huge growth curves. To keep up corners are cut, quality control slips, and customers start getting pissed off, before sales collapse and many companies fall to a fraction of their original size or go bankrupt. We can all agree we want Van's stay solvent.

I hope Van's pulls through this and learns from mistakes made. In the near term, I am sorry for all of the builders stuck in the middle of this and hope that you do end up getting the quality parts you paid for and expected when you put down your money. And that Van's rolls back all of the LCP changes that they implemented and returns the kits to the original manufacturing design. This is best for their long term success and is the right thing to do.

 

[Bullpup]

I get all of that and do understand. In order for your plane to not rip to shreds every time you pull 6 G's with your family, you are trusting 100's of metal parts and thousands of fasteners that range from .016" all the way up to .125", with varying alloys of varying strengths. Each one of these parts and fasteners was individually selected by a Vans engineer in order to handle those stress loads. If they got it right, the plane handles the loads and if they didn't, it starts cracking and rips apart. Everyone seems to be going nuts about the crappy and dishonest Vans engineers on this LCP issue, but yet continue to blindly trust the 1000's of other design decisions they made, feeling some absent trust that they are punched and therefore safe. Sorry, but just don't get it. The plane is historically safe and bullet proof due to those 1000's of design decisions, NOT because they were punched instead of Laser cut. If you trust every other decision made by the vans engineering team, I just don't get how you not trust them when they say the LCP parts won't fail. When you fly one of these planes, you have put A LOT of trust into the engineers that spec'ed all the parts. So why is this the only issue where we dont trust them?

I am sure I would feel concerned with seeing all of the cracks and probably would bother me to some degree. But if they told me that the cracks were benign, I would have to trust them. This is no different than me saying those engineers are stupid for specifying .025" 2024 wing skins. Doesn't seem right so I am upgrading to .032" 7075 skins. Where does it end? As you clearly mentioned, you do NOT have the skills to make these decisions. So how are you getting the skills to claim they are wrong on the LCP issue?

I get that you paid for punched parts and want them. But I am not sure that Vans ever gauranteed all of the parts would be punched for you. Maybe they did and they are in the wrong or maybe you just read that on the internet and therefore not a guarantee from Vans.

Larry

Larry, trust is not a binary black/white decision - it is informed by a lot of other factors. Why this issue and not others? Because this is one of the only times where they have, after the fact, reduced the margin on a part (vs. an SB adding a doubler, for example), and is the only one to my knowledge that specifically violates their own previous and still current guidance. Also, there is a demonstrated history of mistakes on this particular issue - QA at a minimum. I personally could care less about punch vs. LC. I do care about cracks, and for me at least my LCP have a 90%+ crack rate.

Also, engineering is the art of trades and management of competing factors, and those trades are influenced by the goal of the engineering task.

When Vans engineers designed the aircraft, their objective was to build a safe, high performance aircraft which was suitable for amateur assembly and would sell well in the market. When they executed the LCP test program, their objective was to minimize the number of parts requiring replacement. Safety, etc. are all of course factors, but it is undeniable that an LCP dimpled hole is not the same quality as a punched one, and the only reason to have accomplished the testing and the current process was to minimize the cost of remediation. 100% replacement would have required no testing, so anything past that had a financial incentive tied to it.

Back to trust, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Vans, with a history of thousands of great aircraft, isn't asking for a leap of faith when they offer a new model. When they unilaterally change the acceptable build standard, used for a century in industry, and offer 5.5 pages of narrative with no specific acceptance criteria, I argue that they have failed to provide the required extraordinary evidence.

Please stop implying that we don't trust Vans aircraft design. Builders who purchased LCP-affected kits purchased the most expensive kits in Vans history! We demonstrated our trust with our wallets and time. Implying otherwise is not useful.

 

[Tlrguy]

Many companies go through management changes leading to a change from an engineering focus to a marketing/sales focused which leads to a huge growth curves. To keep up corners are cut, quality control slips, and customers start getting pissed off, before sales collapse and many companies fall to a fraction of their original size or go bankrupt. We can all agree we want Van's stay solvent.

I hope Van's pulls through this and learns from mistakes made. In the near term, I am sorry for all of the builders stuck in the middle of this and hope that you do end up getting the quality parts you paid for and expected when you put down your money. And that Van's rolls back all of the LCP changes that they implemented and returns the kits to the original manufacturing design. This is best for their long term success and is the right thing to do.

Thanks for the nice thoughts Chris. Us LCP builders really need help from ALL builders. We all benefit from a sound resolution.

 

[rocketman1988]

I see that you dodged the initial question but I understand why.

As for the initial airworthiness, that is a joint responsibility between you and the DAR to ascertain. By mentioning the DAR isn’t going to go over every rivet you come off like others that imply we should try to hide imperfections. Plus they don’t need to inspect every rivet. If he wants to cite AC 23-13a he only needs to find one crack within a primary structure.

I don’t know why people mention that they have seen airplanes flying with poor workmanship and missing parts so we should be equally as reckless. Do they see how that comes off?

No, I didn’t “dodge” anything; I choose to try and stay out, as much as I can…your reply is telling of the reason why I choose to stay out.

If the engineering data said that in the worst possible, truly unrealistic case, the aircraft was safe for five lifetimes instead of seven, you would still feel that it wasn’t safe. It is, therefore, fruitless to attempt to “discuss” anything, as you have already made up your mind. That’s fair, it’s your build; build what you want.

As far as “hiding imperfections”, your words, I said no such thing. It is a widely known fact that the FAA and most DARs do not do an in depth inspection before they issue an A/W certificate… it is up to the builder to determine the airworthiness. Consequently, you are free to determine if you think the aircraft is or is not airworthy if it has “acceptable” LC parts regardless of what the engineers and third party firm say.

 

[Walt]

1. Invest in improving communication with customers.
2. Invest in changing the affected parts at 0 cost.
3. Invest in changing the QB kits of your affected clients.
4. Invest in new machines to increase production the right way.
5. Put all LCP parts and QB kits on sale at cost price. Someone will buy them and cushion the losses.

If Van's does not have enough financial strength, ask for financial help. It is a great company with years of good reputation and with many customers waiting and willing to pay for their products! They will recover for sure.

I agree, the above is really the only way Van’s will be able to restore the customer loyalty they have earned, anything less will end up hurting them in the long run.
At this point perception is their reality.

 

[ncardella]

Honestly, if it weren't for this forum and all the good things I read about Van's, I would have already put my situation in the hands of a lawyer.
When you pay so much money, they don't answer your emails and months go by, all you can think about is that you have been scammed.

Surely the people at Van's are very intelligent, but I still can't understand why they have made these decisions...

Most of us don't accept LCP parts, no matter what the reports say! Van's should have known! Why do you invest money and so much time in all those tests?

1. Invest in improving communication with customers.
2. Invest in changing the affected parts at 0 cost.
3. Invest in changing the QB kits of your affected clients.
4. Invest in new machines to increase production the right way.
5. Put all LCP parts and QB kits on sale at cost price. Someone will buy them and cushion the losses.

Even if they did all that, customers also have to put effort into repairs and endure long waits. But hey, problems happen, it wasn't on purpose and we can understand it.

But you don't want us to accept a ship as an aquatic animal...

As time goes by, airplanes become more expensive to buy, at least we should get the same quality as always.

If Van's does not have enough financial strength, ask for financial help. It is a great company with years of good reputation and with many customers waiting and willing to pay for their products! They will recover for sure.

100% Spot on. That would be the right thing(s) to do.

 

[swift12]

No, I didn’t “dodge” anything; I choose to try and stay out, as much as I can…your reply is telling of the reason why I choose to stay out.

If the engineering data said that in the worst possible, truly unrealistic case, the aircraft was safe for five lifetimes instead of seven, you would still feel that it wasn’t safe. It is, therefore, fruitless to attempt to “discuss” anything, as you have already made up your mind. That’s fair, it’s your build; build what you want.

As far as “hiding imperfections”, your words, I said no such thing. It is a widely known fact that the FAA and most DARs do not do an in depth inspection before they issue an A/W certificate… it is up to the builder to determine the airworthiness. Consequently, you are free to determine if you think the aircraft is or is not airworthy if it has “acceptable” LC parts regardless of what the engineers and third party firm say.

And you would be absolutely correct. I have made up my mind. As would most buyers when it comes to selling…..”so does yours have any LCP parts in it?”……yes but the engineers said they were ok……..now you decide……am I wrong?

 

[Jack_G_S]

Incorrect. YOU alone are signing the document stating it is airworthy. No DAR signature involved. He may or may not give an inspection, but IT IS NOT an airworthiness certification. That is provided by your signature. I got my AWC from a FSDO guy. He may have looked at the plane for 10 minutes. He was clear that he didn't care, as it was ME that was signing off on the airworhiness of the aircraft, NOT him. This part he made VERY clear.

Did he not sign form 8130-6?

 

[dmattmul]

Thanks for actually reading and documenting the process

Your description seams to differ from the FAA’s

Maybe others will actually take time to understand what the regs say vs what they just think they say.

 

[Jack_G_S]

Maybe others will actually take time to understand what the regs say vs what they just think they say.

What’s the point of an inspection if there is no point to the inspection? Can a DAR deny an airworthiness certificate?

8130.2j 2-3 seams straight forward to me. I haven’t seen a source that shows the DAR doesn’t inspect anything.

 

[rocketman1988]

Exactly

What’s the point of an inspection if there is no point to the inspection? Can a DAR deny an airworthiness certificate?

You posted the snip of the rules…yes they can. To your point, if most inspections really aren’t, what is the point?

That said, my inspection was done by a MIDO guy, and it was indeed an inspection…

 

[lr172]

Your description seams to differ from the FAA’s

Yes, the DAR confirms that the aircraft is airworthy. How does he do that? He has you sign a document stating that it is airworthy and place a similar set of words in the log book and sign it, stating that the plane is airworthy. Yes, the airworthiness must be confirmed before the AWC is issued, but his job ends at the part where you put ink to paper making your sworn affirmation that it is airworthy. The DAR signs no similar document attesting to the planes airworthiness and has no obligation to confirm that it is airworthy. He may do a detailed inspection as a value add contribution for hte $ you paid him, but that IS NOT an airworthiness confirmation. Ask an A&P how long it takes him to confirm airworthiness on a plane brought to him for annual. It is NOT the 1-2 hour walk around that the DAR does. I don't even think that being an A&P is a requirement for being a DAR. There job is mostly one of paperwork.

 

[lr172]

Larry, trust is not a binary black/white decision - it is informed by a lot of other factors. Why this issue and not others? Because this is one of the only times where they have, after the fact, reduced the margin on a part (vs. an SB adding a doubler, for example), and is the only one to my knowledge that specifically violates their own previous and still current guidance. Also, there is a demonstrated history of mistakes on this particular issue - QA at a minimum. I personally could care less about punch vs. LC. I do care about cracks, and for me at least my LCP have a 90%+ crack rate.

.

Ok, I'll stop after this. Again you say that they have reduced the safety margin, but you have no evidence this is the case; You are doing arm chair engineering. You have again assumed that having a crack in the dimple center somehow reduces the assemblies ability to handle the designed load eventhough you have no experience to state that. A professional testing firm took a part with this so called margin reducing error and stressed it WAY beyond it's designed load factor and guess what, a crack appeared in a different spot. So, on one side of this is you and all the other nay sayer's on this thread saying that these cracks reduce the safety margin and on the other side we have a company (not Vans) of scientists and Engineers that do destructive testing to find flaws and they stress a part well beyond any expected margins would protect and still the crack is meaningless and a new crack starts somewhere else.

I give up and will walk away; probably never should have come back. It would seem I am fighting a losing battle and will never convince anyone here that possibly there are more knowledgeable people out there than VAF members and first time aircraft builders.

[ed. Rules violation text removed. Kept rest. dr] However, none of that has anything to do with the science and testing, which is pretty conclusive. I'll state again, just because vans said to avoid cracks in Section 5 DOES NOT MEAN that all cracks will result erosion of margin. MUCH depends upon WHERE that crack is and we now have reputable testing data to prove that; Something Vans didn't have when they wrote section 5.

Larry

 

[lr172]

You posted the snip of the rules…yes they can. To your point, if most inspections really aren’t, what is the point?

That said, my inspection was done by a MIDO guy, and it was indeed an inspection…

They MAY do one and even deny based upon what they see, but they aren't REQUIRED to do so. My FSDO guy looked at my plane for 5-10 minutes, then straight to paperwork and lectures. He knew less about airplane construction than my wife.

I believe many go to an experienced DAR for the value that they add in getting a second set of eyes on the plane for the builder to help catch errors prior to flight. This is quite valuable for many, but we should not confuse it as an initial airworthiness certification, as that comes ONLY from the manufacturer of the plane. The cert will only be issued by the FAA after the manufacturer states in writing that the plane is airworthy.

 

[vic syracuse]

Yes, the DAR confirms that the aircraft is airworthy. How does he do that? He has you sign a document stating that it is airworthy and place a similar set of words in the log book and sign it, stating that the plane is airworthy. Yes, the airworthiness must be confirmed before the AWC is issued, but his job ends at the part where you put ink to paper making your sworn affirmation that it is airworthy. The DAR signs no similar document attesting to the planes airworthiness and has no obligation to confirm that it is airworthy. He may do a detailed inspection as a value add contribution for hte $ you paid him, but that IS NOT an airworthiness confirmation. Ask an A&P how long it takes him to confirm airworthiness on a plane brought to him for annual. It is NOT the 1-2 hour walk around that the DAR does. I don't even think that being an A&P is a requirement for being a DAR. There job is mostly one of paperwork.

Anymore there is so much misinformation on this forum that I question even continuing to contribute.

I can only speak for myself but I’m sure most DARs will feel the same. Yes, the builder does the inspection and makes a statement in the logbook that they have found the aircraft in a condition for safe operation. The DAR makes a statement that the aircraft meets the requirements for the certificate requested. Before doing so, I give the aircraft a very thorough inspection, and it’s amazing what I have found over time. At least three times I know I have save someone’s life. No, I won’t go I to detail here and no I don’t lower my own build standards so stop with the silly responses). I take the inspection very seriously. I have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure to the best of my ability that the aircraft is safe, at least for the one time that I see it.

Yes, DAR requirements still require the A&P. Comparing the DAR inspection to an IA inspection is ludicrous. During the annual/condition inspections not only are discoveries made, but they are fixed. Maintenance is done. Repairs are made, ADs are checked for compliance, etc. Yes, that takes more than 1-2 hours. On a brand new airplane, none of that is necessary. We can focus on the construction and safety aspect.

Yes, a DAR can issue a Denial. I’ve only done it 3 times in 15 years, and all parties agreed. It’s not a big deal. One has to rectify the problems and then reapply for the airworthiness certificate.

This is way off topic for this thread, but I wanted to correct the misinformation.

For those who wish, take the time to read FAA Order 8130.2J. It will help you understand the list of things DARs/Inspectors are required to check. In fact, we have to fill out and sign a 8100-1 conformity document listing all of those required items and stating we checked them.

Vic

 

[airguy]

It appears that Vans no longer allows web orders for any of the LCP-affected parts. All of those parts on their website say "Call to order."

Makes me wonder what will happen when I call on Monday and ask to order parts, even paying list price, to replace my LCP's. Will they then refuse to sell me those parts?

Somehow that's even more ominous that zero communication.

 

[sahrens]

Anymore there is so much misinformation on this forum that I question even continuing to contribute.

This is way off topic for this thread, but I wanted to correct the misinformation.

Vic

Vic, Thank you for clarifying this for me. I believe you have really touched the heart of the matter. As the saying goes nature abhors a vacuum. In the case of this thread it is a vacuum of information. And in that vacuum there is a rush to seek information and speculate as to the outcome.

Everyone at Vans must be angry, horrified and disappointed in this situation. No one at Vans wants to see the company fail, I am sure they are working hard to figure out a pathway forward. This is not an inexpensive problem and it won't entail an inexpensive solution. I can't image the volume of phone calls and emails that have flooded Vans Aircraft daily. Many not very kind I am sure. At some point they have to work on the solution, not answer hundreds of emails.

Not one of the affected customers is interested in seeing Vans fail either. But those that are affected have spent hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. I know I would have a hard time explaining to my wife and family this huge investment and ensuing situation. Will our money be lost?, why is this going on? and many other questions have been asked in many homes. The only answer is "I don't know!" In the void of information there can only be speculation, response and angry disagreement. In today's world why would we expect anything else. If its not voiced here it will be, and is already, on other forums.

The only way the speculation will stop is with regular and concrete information. That information can breed confidence and that confidence can end the speculation and move this to closure. There is only one place that can come from.

 

[N82VM]

It appears that Vans no longer allows web orders for any of the LCP-affected parts. All of those parts on their website say "Call to order."

Makes me wonder what will happen when I call on Monday and ask to order parts, even paying list price, to replace my LCP's. Will they then refuse to sell me those parts?

They have refused my initiation of returning LCP so who knows.

 

[joer308]

I ordered replacement parts 2 weeks ago and have received them.

The world, once again, is a safe place.

 

[airguy]

I ordered replacement parts 2 weeks ago and have received them.

The world, once again, is a safe place.

By phone? or through the webstore?

My total out-of-pocket replacement cost at FULL LIST price for ALL parts is right at $4k. If I wait for Vans to finally pull their head out and take a breath, assuming red/yellow are free and maybe 2/3 price for blue, I'm at about $1.8k. I'm willing to spend the extra to get what I need now, and be able to continue building while I'm still young enough to do it. It appears Vans is perfectly happy letting this drag on into whenever. And why not? They are already losing customers as evidenced in this thread - the longer they wait without communicating with or responding to their customers, the less it will cost them, apparently.

Or I may just order all the parts for the wing kit so I can keep going - and let them take the time to pull their head out for the parts on the tail and fuse. The wing will (hopefully) take me at least that long.

 

[joer308]

I did it through the website store. I thought the same thing - in the end, it's $230K+, another 2 or 3K isn't worth all this consternation. I had to do something and wanted to keep building. Reading this is like watching a crash - I can't keep myself from doing it, and just leads to aggravation.

 

[Bullpup]

Ok, I'll stop after this. Again you say that they have reduced the safety margin, but you have no evidence this is the case; You are doing arm chair engineering. You have again assumed that having a crack in the dimple center somehow reduces the assemblies ability to handle the designed load eventhough you have no experience to state that. A professional testing firm took a part with this so called margin reducing error and stressed it WAY beyond it's designed load factor and guess what, a crack appeared in a different spot. So, on one side of this is you and all the other nay sayer's on this thread saying that these cracks reduce the safety margin and on the other side we have a company (not Vans) of scientists and Engineers that do destructive testing to find flaws and they stress a part well beyond any expected margins would protect and still the crack is meaningless and a new crack starts somewhere else.

I give up and will walk away; probably never should have come back. It would seem I am fighting a losing battle and will never convince anyone here that possibly there are more knowledgeable people out there than VAF members and first time aircraft builders.

[ed. Rules violation text removed. Kept rest. dr] However, none of that has anything to do with the science and testing, which is pretty conclusive. I'll state again, just because vans said to avoid cracks in Section 5 DOES NOT MEAN that all cracks will result erosion of margin. MUCH depends upon WHERE that crack is and we now have reputable testing data to prove that; Something Vans didn't have when they wrote section 5.

Larry

Those particular words - "margin reducing" - were only one of several points in that comment. And I have, professionally, signed off as the final authority on nonconformities in aircraft production. I can say, with certainty, that the engineering assessment provided so far is insufficient to support what we are being asked to do. And I can, with reasonable (albeit not specific to this application) engineering judgement foresee a case where the LCP feature and the applied stresses line up in a negative way. Without more insight into the totality of the testing done, with numbers!, why should I treat this any differently than the "build on" guidance 3 months ago? Same engineers, after all.

The documentation is insufficient - I am NOT saying that the test program was insufficient.

As long as the proposed remediation directly contradicts section 5 and AC guidance, it can't be acceptable until one or more of the documents are changed.

 

[David Paule]

....As long as the proposed remediation directly contradicts section 5 and AC guidance, it can't be acceptable until one or more of the documents are changed.

A manufacturer's specific guidance for a particular part always overrides the generalized recommendations.

Dave

 

[Bullpup]

A manufacturer's specific guidance for a particular part always overrides the generalized recommendations.

Dave

I would argue that the guidance is anything but specific - this would be a different conversation if there was any information on how many cracks are acceptable, how big, what orientation, etc.

If that was provided it would make a huge difference. As is we have a few paragraphs covering hundreds of discrete parts, with nothing other than "acceptable for use". I have to assume that really means "acceptable for use when common build practices are followed", but that's where the conflict lies.

 

[Ironflight]

Your description seams to differ from the FAA’s

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.

 

[Jack_G_S]

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.

Ok I admit the term “airworthy” has a different definition when it comes to E-AB because there is no definitive guidance for experimental airworthiness. I always understood the term was vague at best when it comes to experimentals.

I thought it was the DARs responsibility to conduct the inspection outlined in 8130.2j 2-3(e) but now I’m not so sure. Whoever does it, one item says “the aircraft is airworthy”. It is irrelevant if that means “safe” as opposed to a well defined term

 

[Sallcock]

There's certainly a lot of people on here with differing views - which is perfectly ok to me.

I do however see that the polarisation seems to be between the people (like myself) who are currently building the airplane versus the people who have already built their airplane and in some cases they have built them decades ago.

So there's the rub - if you have already built your airplane and have hundreds of hours in it then you obviously built it before this ugly issue raised its head - by that definition you and anyone flying in your airplane will not have the potential to be impacted by this situation in terms of safety / trust / insurability / resale value.

That's the issue that I and the other builders on this forum are currently uncertain about - it is a legitimate concern and one that wont easily be negated

So its not very helpful to be told to just accept this as its not your build and therefore not your risk from a safety or fiscal perspective going forward.

I am hopeful that Vans will find a way through this and remain a viable business but it needs to be done with the cooperation of the customer and that's where we are seeing the issues on this forum

Lets hope they can do that - I wish you all well.

 

[cwilkins]

Yes, the DAR confirms that the aircraft is airworthy…

I don't even think that being an A&P is a requirement for being a DAR. There job is mostly one of paperwork.

Look, not to single you out, but you have made a few posts over the last couple of days with information that is just flat out false. I mean, a quick google search of DAR qualifications reveals that being an A&P is the very first requirement. It also appears, based on my short scan of your comments, that you aren’t a current builder and therefore do not have money tied up in a kit with LCPs.

Please don’t take this the wrong way. I am not here to criticize you or start any kind of argument. I simply want to point out a couple of things from a different perspective.

I get why people are so adamantly defending Van’s Aircraft and their engineers. They are a reputable company that produces a phenomenal line of aircraft, and they have a history of doing the right thing for their customers when they don’t get something right. I personally, and I’m sure many customers that have money tied up in kits with LCPs, want to see this issue resolved so we can put all this behind us and move forward. NONE of us want them to fail.

Do I trust their engineers? Of course I trust them, but not blindly. While I don’t pretend to know anything about aircraft design and engineering, I am smart enough (healthy dose of skepticism?) to recognize that Vans Aircraft has a financial interest in maximizing the number of parts they deem acceptable. I can appreciate them doing all this testing to ensure the planes are not going to fall out of the sky because of LCPs, but make no mistake, the testing is ultimately being done to protect the company’s interest. I highly suspect that if replacing the parts would be cheaper than testing, they’d just be replacing the parts.

Am I going to build a perfect plane? No matter how careful I build, my plane would never come out perfect. Having said that, I chose Van’s aircraft because imo I’m starting with a near perfect kit. I believe this, not just because some engineer said it, but because there’s a fleet of over 12k flying examples that confirms it. It is an “overbuilt” design that will result in a superior finished product in spite of the flaws I introduce as the manufacturer. My responsibility as the manufacturer is to determine what imperfections I can live with, and when it’s time to start drilling out rivets and replacing parts. My problem with this whole situation is that I paid for a perfect kit, but received one with less than perfect parts. Bottom line is that the kit I ordered had a low chance to come out perfect. The kit I received has a ZERO percent chance of being perfect.

All airplanes are susceptible to fatigue and cracking. You can look through the SB and AD lists of any airplane to confirm this fact. It’s just the nature of the business. The problem with the LCP kits is that in addition to dealing with the inevitable “normal” fatigue cracks, we will also have to address any complications that arise from a kit that is starting out with cracks. Builders report that as much as 90% of these holes crack when dimpled. That’s a lot of chances for problems to develop. I don’t care how much testing is done or how much I trust an engineer, I can almost guarantee there will be some sort of unanticipated consequence of installing these parts. Could it be 1000 flight hours from now or 5000 hrs? Who knows. All I know is I didn’t sign up to build the test plane for this LCP program. I wasn’t given the choice between a kit with or without LCPs, but I choose to not build my plane with those parts.

You don’t have to have a kit with LCPs to have an opinion about how this should be resolved, but try to at least consider the perspective of those of us with money tied up in these kits. I feel it’s a little presumptive on Van’s Aircraft to assume we would just accept their word that the parts are good and just move on. That is obviously not the case. At the end of the day Van’s is going to have to come to some sort of resolution that is acceptable for those of us who are directly affected.

 

[Bullpup]

Engineering trust

This was said earlier, but I don't think it represents the actual situation well:

I am sure I would feel concerned with seeing all of the cracks and probably would bother me to some degree. But if they told me that the cracks were benign, I would have to trust them. This is no different than me saying those engineers are stupid for specifying .025" 2024 wing skins. Doesn't seem right so I am upgrading to .032" 7075 skins. Where does it end? As you clearly mentioned, you do NOT have the skills to make these decisions. So how are you getting the skills to claim they are wrong on the LCP issue?

The actual situation is more like if the skins were always .032" 7075, but to increase production they were changed to .025" 2024. A year later, after poor quality and performance was seen in the field, a stop work is issued.

The first decision made is to stop use of 0.025" parts and shift all new production back to the original spec. Next, testing is performed, and about 1/4 of the affected parts are marked for immediate replacement - clearly illustrating some sort of error in the original engineering and production decision.

Now imagine you have some of the other 75% of "OK" 0.025" parts. New kits have returned to the old standard; this tranche of kits are the only ones which will ever have this issue. Is there anything that could convince you to build & own an aircraft with what will always be known as anomalous parts?

 

[airguy]

It appears that Vans no longer allows web orders for any of the LCP-affected parts. All of those parts on their website say "Call to order."

Makes me wonder what will happen when I call on Monday and ask to order parts, even paying list price, to replace my LCP's. Will they then refuse to sell me those parts?

Somehow that's even more ominous that zero communication.

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.

 

[SwissVolts]

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.

I also want to change my LCP, but without paying more for what I have already paid. Why should I have to wait longer than you?

Van's has to find a fair solution for everyone, and offer us the parts according to the age of each client's order, shouldn't it be something like that?

It wouldn't be fair to give preference to those who want to give away their money, right?

 

[2theskyy]

I also want to change my LCP, but without paying more for what I have already paid. Why should I have to wait longer than you?

Van's has to find a fair solution for everyone, and offer us the parts according to the age of each client's order, shouldn't it be something like that?

It wouldn't be fair to give preference to those who want to give away their money, right?

Sadly, if it weren’t about $, we wouldn’t be in this place to begin with.