Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - From Van's on the door SB

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

From Van's on the door SB
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

gengrumpy(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

FYI.  I was hoping for a better understanding on this issue.......



Begin forwarded message:

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Gus Funnell" <gusf(at)vansaircraft.com (gusf(at)vansaircraft.com)>

Date: January 19, 2010 6:08:59 PM CST

To: rudi.greyling(at)accenture.com (rudi.greyling(at)accenture.com), rv10builder(at)verizon.net (rv10builder(at)verizon.net), ddddsp(at)juno.com (ddddsp(at)juno.com), gengrumpy(at)aol.com (gengrumpy(at)aol.com), dav1111(at)suddenlink.net (dav1111(at)suddenlink.net), bob(at)thelefflers.com (bob(at)thelefflers.com), robertbrunk(at)mac.com (robertbrunk(at)mac.com), bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com (bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com), scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com (scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com)

Subject: Service Bulletin

 

     Thanks for your email regarding the recent RV-10 SB. 

    

   

    The point of any SB is to benefit both RV builders/pilots AND Van's Aircraft with increased safety and reduced costs. Most of the complaints we get about SBs list only the builder's personal concerns about difficulty/cost of compliance, or their belief that there is a "better way". 

    

   

    We always consider those issues, but we also have to balance them with broader concerns; to maintain Van's Aircraft as a viable company, and to protect it against future liability. There will always be potential for some conflict between these two points of view, which we hope that our customers will understand.   

    

   

    As with all Service Bulletins in the certified and experimental world, it is not mandatory that owner/operators comply with them.  It is up to the owner to comply or not, at their sole discretion. By issuing this service bulletin, Van's is recommending that it be complied with. 

    

   

    Fly Safe,   

    

   

    Vans   

 

 	




=  [quote][b]

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

We all got the same response. At least they responded, but I  was with Scott, 

 Vans response-  As with  all Service Bulletins in the certified and experimental world, it is not  mandatory that owner/operators comply with them.  It is up to the owner to  comply or not, at their sole discretion. By issuing this service bulletin, Van's  is recommending that it be complied with. 



 Would have like to see the compliance as being "optional"  since what Vans is giving us really is not the only solution, there are  much better ways to do this, as many of us have already mentioned and their SB  is not opening that option with their verbiage.

 Pasca;

  



  From: Miller John (gengrumpy(at)aol.com) 

 Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:22 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com) 

 Subject: From Van's on the door SB

 



FYI.  I was hoping for a better understanding on this  issue.......

 

 Begin forwarded message:

  	  Quote: 	
		        From: "Gus Funnell" <gusf(at)vansaircraft.com (gusf(at)vansaircraft.com)>

   Date: January 19, 2010 6:08:59 PM    CST

   To: rudi.greyling(at)accenture.com (rudi.greyling(at)accenture.com), rv10builder(at)verizon.net (rv10builder(at)verizon.net), ddddsp(at)juno.com (ddddsp(at)juno.com), gengrumpy(at)aol.com (gengrumpy(at)aol.com), dav1111(at)suddenlink.net (dav1111(at)suddenlink.net), bob(at)thelefflers.com (bob(at)thelefflers.com), robertbrunk(at)mac.com (robertbrunk(at)mac.com), bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com (bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com), scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com (scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com)

   Subject: Service    Bulletin

   

      Thanks    for your email regarding the recent RV-10 SB. 

   



   The    point of any SB is to benefit both RV builders/pilots AND Van's Aircraft with    increased safety and reduced costs. Most of the complaints we get about SBs    list only the builder's personal concerns about difficulty/cost of compliance,    or their belief that there is a "better way". 

   



   We    always consider those issues, but we also have to balance them with broader    concerns; to maintain Van's Aircraft as a viable company, and to protect it    against future liability. There will always be potential for some conflict    between these two points of view, which we hope that our customers will    understand.   

   



   As with    all Service Bulletins in the certified and experimental world, it is not    mandatory that owner/operators comply with them.  It is up to the owner    to comply or not, at their sole discretion. By issuing this service bulletin,    Van's is recommending that it be complied with. 

   



   Fly    Safe,   

   



   Vans      



	




= [quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

[b]

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:20 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

So we now have it from the horses mouth.

 

 This is CYA !

 

 Deems Davis

 N519PJ

 www.deemsrv10.com

 

 On 1/19/2010 7:22 PM, Miller John wrote: [quote]FYI.  I was hoping for a better understanding on this issue.......

   

   Begin forwarded message:

       	  Quote: 	
		            From: "Gus Funnell" <gusf(at)vansaircraft.com (gusf(at)vansaircraft.com)>

     Date: January 19, 2010 6:08:59 PM CST

     To: rudi.greyling(at)accenture.com (rudi.greyling(at)accenture.com),     rv10builder(at)verizon.net (rv10builder(at)verizon.net),     ddddsp(at)juno.com (ddddsp(at)juno.com),     gengrumpy(at)aol.com (gengrumpy(at)aol.com),     dav1111(at)suddenlink.net (dav1111(at)suddenlink.net),     bob(at)thelefflers.com (bob(at)thelefflers.com),     robertbrunk(at)mac.com (robertbrunk(at)mac.com),     bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com (bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com),     scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com (scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com)

     Subject: Service Bulletin

     

     

     

             Thanks for your email regarding the recent RV-10 SB. 

        

       

        The point of any SB is to benefit both RV builders/pilots AND Van's Aircraft with increased safety and reduced costs. Most of the complaints we get about SBs list only the builder's personal concerns about difficulty/cost of compliance, or their belief that there is a "better way". 

        

       

        We always consider those issues, but we also have to balance them with broader concerns; to maintain Van's Aircraft as a viable company, and to protect it against future liability. There will always be potential for some conflict between these two points of view, which we hope that our customers will understand.       

        

       

        As with all Service Bulletins in the certified and experimental world, it is not mandatory that owner/operators comply with them.  It is up to the owner to comply or not, at their sole discretion. By issuing this service bulletin, Van's is recommending that it be complied with. 

        

       

        Fly Safe,   

        

       

        Vans   

     

   	
   

   

 =    	  Quote: 	
		  



 href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

 href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
 [b]

AirMike

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 514
Location: Nevada

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:17 am Post subject: A different viewpoint - on the door SB

I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B. Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem and the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit, essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a few years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper. Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this country we are all screwed. 



We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country where we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we see fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are free to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us will fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this Summer.



As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built and well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a delight to fly.

_________________
See you OSH '18
Q/B - sold.

pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:53 am Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

I agree Mike.  I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes on

with this list.  I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible.  Don't like

the door latching mechanism?  Fine - you are free to change it.  It's a

HOMEBUILT.  That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything you

like.



I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the

changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience.  Many

feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage

bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the

case with this one.  Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and

make their own decisions for incorporation.  Ever look at the quality of

some of the other kits out there?



OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.



Jack Phillips

#40610

Raleigh, NC

     Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting

adventures with Pro-Seal



--

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:24 am Post subject: Re: From Van's on the door SB

Of course this is CYA. But it's nothing like the certified world. A year ago or so I got a letter from Airborn, saying that they had established a service life of 5 years for vacuum pumps. And since they hadn't made any for five years, all Airborn pumps were now unairworthy and had to be removed from service. Of course, this had no authority of law behind it (at least in the US part 91) but was just CYA. Poor guys in part 135, some other countries, however, were out of luck.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:58 am Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue is the 

solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could have been a 

better option than a hook that should have been considered, like improving 

the door, better system of locking, etc.

I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at the 

time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime without issue 

or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane, Vans knows planes 

significantly better than I so why not get their doors to close correctly to 

start with versus putting out a SB that I think avoids the issue to start 

with.

So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook that 

brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.

Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with Dick 

flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better solution.

Pascal



--------------------------------------------------

From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>

Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:52 AM

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB



[quote] 



 I agree Mike.  I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes 

 on

 with this list.  I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible.  Don't 

 like

 the door latching mechanism?  Fine - you are free to change it.  It's a

 HOMEBUILT.  That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything 

 you

 like.



 I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the

 changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience.  Many

 feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage

 bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the

 case with this one.  Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and

 make their own decisions for incorporation.  Ever look at the quality of

 some of the other kits out there?



 OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.



 Jack Phillips

 #40610

 Raleigh, NC

     Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting

 adventures with Pro-Seal



 --

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:54 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

Total agreement here too.  It's easy to lose sight of the whole 

homebuilt concept when building one of these modern kits. 



Jack Phillips wrote:

[quote] 



 I agree Mike.  I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes on

 with this list.  I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible.  Don't like

 the door latching mechanism?  Fine - you are free to change it.  It's a

 HOMEBUILT.  That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything you

 like.



 I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the

 changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience.  Many

 feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage

 bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the

 case with this one.  Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and

 make their own decisions for incorporation.  Ever look at the quality of

 some of the other kits out there?



 OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.



 Jack Phillips

 #40610

 Raleigh, NC

      Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting

 adventures with Pro-Seal



 --

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:54 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the 

aftermarket blocks combined with the light system seems positive enough 

and sturdy enough to me.  Nothing else need be done in my opinion.  I'm 

guessing that Van may think so too when he has builder/flyer hat on.  

But there's a business involved...



 From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not be 

enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to think 

so.  All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on door 

latching.  So they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude, probably 

low cost but liability avoiding solution to CYA.  And left it up the 

flexibility of the builder and the rules surrounding homebuilding to 

chose the right solutions.



I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.



Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it" Watson



Pascal wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue 

 is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could 

 have been a better option than a hook that should have been 

 considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc.

 I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at 

 the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime 

 without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane, 

 Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their 

 doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I 

 think avoids the issue to start with.

 So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook 

 that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.

 Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with 

 Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better 

 solution.

 Pascal

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:54 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

I don't really mind the response Van's gave for the SB.

I do wish they wouldn't have made it mandatory, but in todays

world I think that every company does the CYA dance whenever

they can.  We should be glad it isn't an AD and that

experimentals don't have to comply with AD's.  We built these

planes ourselves for a reason...so that we could have the

freedom to experiment and modify. If Van's wants to

cover their butt, so be it.  When it comes to a structural

fix, like the bulkhead patch, I don't think that we need to

question it much...if there is a structural problem, we

can just gladly obey and do the fix...because we can't really

prove the design as-is is faulty.  When it comes to this

SB, we all know that doors flying off can be a problem...but

it's our job to find a way around that happening to us.

Good thing we're free to choose our methods.

One plug for the internet age...  I really think that

the honest "I built it myself" builder, who participates

in a list such as this, will be a far "safer" RV-10 pilot.

Some of that comes from the care they take in building,

some comes from the knowledge of how it's built, but,

a LOT OF BENEFIT will come to those who built it themselves

and through the learning process decided to take part in

a list like this.  On a list like this, you get to hear

about the good and the bad....like doors flying off. I

don't remember the count or know the current count, but

I think, if I remember right, that I'm personally aware of

about 5 or 6 door-off incidents.  That's not a small number

for this size fleet, and ESPECIALLY since Van's had it

happen to THEM before, they probably understand that it's

time to do something about it.  So they provided parts,

and guidance, to fix their little doormonster.

Where it is sad, but not unexpected, is that after it

happened to them and a few other people, if Van's had

participated more in the online discussions, and taken

things to heart, perhaps sooner into the kit sales

cycle they could have improved the latch design, and

maybe by kit 300 or something, they could have had a

better door latch mechanism as standard production.

But, we all know that once Van's has finished a kit and

started selling all kit sections, they're DONE with it.

They don't improve it unless they have a major issue.

Not even for a major MINOR issue.  Look at the axle

extensions that we all used to know about.  We heard

about many people breaking axle extensions...high rates

of failure.  But that's minor to them, so they don't

even re-issue those parts.  They just simply do not

go back and revise much unless they personally see many

problems with it.  I'm not ranting about it...it's

just the way they are. They went on and focused on the

RV-12 project.  There ARE no major improvements coming

for any section of the RV-10, I'd be willing to bet.

It would be more likely that there would be an RV-13

in the makings (or maybe RV-14 to avoid losing sales

to superstitious folk).  Maybe the RV-14 will be a new

design of a nice 4-seater...who knows.  Maybe they'll

learn some things from the -10 and it'll have new

doors.  But I just think it's unrealistic to expect

major changes to their RV-10 design....even if it's

something they could make much nicer like the door

latching.

Also, for their fix, they needed to come up with

something that could be an easy bolt-in fix for

already flying planes.  They realize that fixing

the entire latching mechanism isn't really very

easy on a finished plane....so I'm sure they came

up with what they did because it was something that

anyone could add, pre or post construction.

So, while I think the SB fix is ugly and not what

I plan to do, I really can't hold them in poor

regard for how they did it or what they did.

They really should "cover their asses".  It wouldn't

make good business sense not to.  It would be nice

to not see the word "mandatory" there, but in the end,

it need not worry us anyway.  We can comply as we

wish.

Tim

Miller John wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   FYI.  I was hoping for a better understanding on this issue.......

 Begin forwarded message:

>

> Thanks for your email regarding the recent RV-10 SB.

>

> The point of any SB is to benefit both RV builders/pilots AND Van's 

> Aircraft with increased safety and reduced costs. Most of the 

> complaints we get about SBs list only the builder's personal concerns 

> about difficulty/cost of compliance, or their belief that there is a 

> "better way".

>

> We always consider those issues, but we also have to balance them with 

> broader concerns; to maintain Van's Aircraft as a viable company, and 

> to protect it against future liability. There will always be potential 

> for some conflict between these two points of view, which we hope that 

> our customers will understand.  

>

> As with all Service Bulletins in the certified and experimental world, 

> it is not mandatory that owner/operators comply with them.  It is up 

> to the owner to comply or not, at their sole discretion. By issuing 

> this service bulletin, Van's is recommending that it be complied with.

>

> Fly Safe,  

>

> Vans  

 =

 *

 *

Phil.Perry(at)netapp.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:58 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

The issue is Service Bulletins are not intended to be a redesign of the

airplane.  They're intended to provide a retrofit solution to a known

problem in a current design.  Anyone who thinks Vans is going to

redesign the doors and write a SB against it will always be

disappointed. 



I stand by Vans on this one.  They have a right to recognize a problem

and offer a fix for it.  Think of the alternative.



Phil



--

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:58 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

Jack Phillips...you forgot to say something. Just build the plane better C never settle for C "Good Enough!" You and your family are going to be in the dam thing.  Van's is doing what they need to do in this litigious C greed driven society.

  

 

 

[quote] From: pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB

 Date: Wed C 20 Jan 2010 12:52:11 -0500

 

 --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>

 

 I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes on

 with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't like

 the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a

 HOMEBUILT. That means you C as the manufacturer C are free to do anything you

 like.

 

 I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit C and has made the

 changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many

 feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage

 bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype) C or ugly C as is the

 case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and

 make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of

 some of the other kits out there?

 

 OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.

 

 Jack Phillips

 #40610

 Raleigh C NC

 Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting

 adventures with Pro-Seal

 

 

 

 --

pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:11 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

Agreed, John.  I don’t know what I’ll do when I get to the latch installation.  I’m still working on the fuel tanks and trying to figure out how to beef up the fuel tanks so when a passenger steps forward of the spar they don’t cause leaks around the rivets.  Here’s a case where this list has given me a heads up on a potential problem, at a point where I might be able to do something about it.  I’ll probably run my potential solution past Van’s, with the understanding that they will almost certainly not approve of it due to legal concerns.  I’m considering adding a doubler sheet under the skin as they did in the wingwalk area.  

   

But I understand that they have a business to run and that whatever I do as the manufacturer is strictly up to me.  

   

Jack Phillips  

#40610  

Raleigh, NC  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez

 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:07 PM

 To: RV 10 group

 Subject: RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB  

  

   

Jack Phillips...you forgot to say something. Just build the plane better, never settle for, "Good Enough!" You and your family are going to be in the dam thing.  Van's is doing what they need to do in this litigious, greed driven society.

  

 

  

 > From: pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net

 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 > Subject: RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB

 > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:52:11 -0500

 > 

 > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>

 > 

 > I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes on

 > with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't like

 > the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a

 > HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything you

 > like.

 > 

 > I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the

 > changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many

 > feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage

 > bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the

 > case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and

 > make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of

 > some of the other kits out there?

 > 

 > OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.

 > 

 > Jack Phillips

 > #40610

 > Raleigh, NC

 > Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting

 > adventures with Pro-Seal

 > 

 > 

 > 

 > --

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:03 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

I agree Jack, quit complaining and get out there and fly the plane!

It is always easy to complain when you are not flying and you have time building and absorbing all the comments from a site like this.  You can really work yourself up.    

At our company we preach "GO TO GEMBA", which means "go to the actual place" before you start complaining and coming up with solutions, go to where the problem is and use it, learn it and get to know everything you can about it.  Then you can really identify the issues, the root cause and test proposed countermeasures and possible solutions. 

I have spent my last two weeks praying to the weather gods and I have not had the answer I am looking for. 



Scott Schmidtscottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com



From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 10:52:11 AM

Subject: RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB



 --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net (pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net)>



I agree Mike.  I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes on

with this list.  I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible.  Don't like

the door latching mechanism?  Fine - you are free to change it.  It's a

HOMEBUILT.  That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything you

like.



I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the

changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience.  Many

feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage

bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the

case with this one.  Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and

make their own decisions for  incorporation.  Ever look at the quality of

some of the other kits out there?



OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.



Jack Phillips

#40610

Raleigh, NC

     Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting

adventures with Pro-Seal



--

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:22 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner) aircraft. We have one here that was purchased by a businessman who according to my sources has already lost the same door twice. No record on any FAA database have I found. In addition his aircraft was annualed and the shop left the nose wheel flopping side to side by 20 degrees. I talked to the second shop who was asked to fix the nose wheel and pointed them to the MATCO axle solution. The problem is not we builders who own and fly but the hired guns and other sellers that build an aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Since we either do not have deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, the litigant will try and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate solution to the door and will not implement the SB. Now for space to store another box. 

 

  

--

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:49 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

Well that opens a whole other problem area.  If you don’t implement the SB, and the aircraft is sold to someone else who then looses the door, you are also potentially liable.  Call the aircraft Bob’s Toy in the paperwork if you want, the insurance company won’t care when they are looking for a way to offset the costs.  

Michael  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DLM

 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:21 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB  

The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner) aircraft. We have one here that was purchased by a businessman who according to my sources has already lost the same door twice. No record on any FAA database have I found. In addition his aircraft was annualed and the shop left the nose wheel flopping side to side by 20 degrees. I talked to the second shop who was asked to fix the nose wheel and pointed them to the MATCO axle solution. The problem is not we builders who own and fly but the hired guns and other sellers that build an aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Since we either do not have deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, the litigant will try and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate solution to the door and will not implement the SB. Now for space to store another box.  

-----Original Message----- 

 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Bill Mauledriver Watson  

Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:46 PM 

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com 

 Subject: Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB   

--> RV10-List message posted by: Bill Mauledriver Watson 

 --> <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>   

This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the aftermarket blocks combined with the light system seems positive enough and sturdy enough to me.  Nothing else need be done in my opinion.  I'm guessing that Van may think so too when he has builder/flyer hat on.    

But there's a business involved...   

 >From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not be enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to think so.  All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on door latching.  So they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude, probably low cost but liability avoiding solution to CYA.  And left it up the flexibility of the builder and the rules surrounding homebuilding to chose the right solutions.  

I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.   

Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it" Watson   

Pascal wrote: 

 > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Pascal" <rv10builder(at)verizon.net> 

 > 

 > I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue 

 > is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could 

 > have been a better option than a hook that should have been 

 > considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc. 

 > I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at 

 > the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime 

 > without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane, 

 > Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their 

 > doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I 

 > think avoids the issue to start with. 

 > So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook 

 > that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one. 

 > Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with 

 > Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better 

 > solution. 

 > Pascal 

 > 

 >   

 more:  

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 

 content also available via the Web Forums! 

 http://forums.matronics.com 

 you for your generous support! 

 --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution   

    	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	

1 	  Quote: 	

2 	  Quote: 	

3 	  Quote: 	

4 	  Quote: 	

5 	  Quote: 	

6 	  Quote: 	

7 	  Quote: 	

8 	  Quote: 	

9

      [quote][b]

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:17 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

I'm not sure I understand or agree with the statement/s, about the original builder's liability increasing in the event of an accident after resale. If that's true, then any modification other than paint scheme carries the same potential. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not aware of any successful lawsuit on an experimental builder following an accident, by either an insurance company or a plaintif. Maybe I'm just ignorant ( OK let the comments rain!).

 Deems Davis

 N519PJ

 www.deemsrv10.com

 On 1/20/2010 3:38 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote: [quote]         RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB           <![endif]-->       <![endif]-->      

  Well that opens a whole other problem area.  If you don’t implement the SB, and the aircraft is sold to someone else who then looses the door, you are also potentially liable.  Call the aircraft Bob’s Toy in the paperwork if you want, the insurance company won’t care when they are looking for a way to offset the costs.   

Michael   

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of DLM

   Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:21 PM

   To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

   Subject: RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB   

The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner) aircraft. We have one here that was purchased by a businessman who according to my sources has already lost the same door twice. No record on any FAA database have I found. In addition his aircraft was annualed and the shop left the nose wheel flopping side to side by 20 degrees. I talked to the second shop who was asked to fix the nose wheel and pointed them to the MATCO axle solution. The problem is not we builders who own and fly but the hired guns and other sellers that build an aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Since we either do not have deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, the litigant will try and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate solution to the door and will not implement the SB. Now for space to store another box.   

-----Original Message----- 

   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Bill Mauledriver Watson   

Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:46 PM 

   To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com) 

   Subject: Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB    

--> RV10-List message posted by: Bill Mauledriver Watson 

   --> <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> (MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com)    

This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the aftermarket blocks combined with the light system seems positive enough and sturdy enough to me.  Nothing else need be done in my opinion.  I'm guessing that Van may think so too when he has builder/flyer hat on.     

But there's a business involved...    

 >From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not be enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to think so.  All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on door latching.  So they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude, probably low cost but liability avoiding solution to CYA.  And left it up the flexibility of the builder and the rules surrounding homebuilding to chose the right solutions.   

I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.    

Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it" Watson      

Pascal wrote: 

   > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Pascal" <rv10builder(at)verizon.net> (rv10builder(at)verizon.net)   

   >   

   > I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue 

   > is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could 

   > have been a better option than a hook that should have been 

   > considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc. 

   > I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at 

   > the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime 

   > without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane, 

   > Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their 

   > doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I 

   > think avoids the issue to start with. 

   > So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook 

   > that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.   

   > Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with 

   > Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better 

   > solution.   

   > Pascal   

   >   

   >      

   more:   

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List   

 content also available via the Web Forums! 

   http://forums.matronics.com   

 you for your generous support! 

 --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution      

     	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
0    	  Quote: 	

1    	  Quote: 	

2    	  Quote: 	

3    	  Quote: 	

4    	  Quote: 	

5    	  Quote: 	

6    	  Quote: 	

7    	  Quote: 	

8    	  Quote: 	

9   

    	  Quote: 	

0 [b]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:24 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

So give them the parts, and make them sign a statement

saying they understand that the SB was not complied with,

and that any and all liabilities resulting from operation

of the aircraft are not yours.  Then, sign your logbook

off as the repair person as "unairworthy" due to the

non-compliance with the SB, and tell them that now, in

order to fly it home, they need to get a ferry permit

and sign-off from an A&P.   You can't get rid of

all liability ANY time you are going to sell that plane,

but you can minimize your liability if you try.

If you have a seriously interested buyer, they'd probably

be fine jumping through that hoop just to buy your plane.



Or, option 2....just build the dang plane to FLY it,

not to sell it. 



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:

[quote]   Well that opens a whole other problem area.  If you don’t implement 

 the SB, and the aircraft is sold to someone else who then looses the 

 door, you are also potentially liable.  Call the aircraft Bob’s Toy in 

 the paperwork if you want, the insurance company won’t care when they 

 are looking for a way to offset the costs.

 

  

 

 Michael

 

  

 

 *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com 

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DLM

 *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:21 PM

 *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 *Subject:* RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB

 

  

 

 The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner) 

 aircraft. We have one here that was purchased by a businessman who 

 according to my sources has already lost the same door twice. No record 

 on any FAA database have I found. In addition his aircraft was annualed 

 and the shop left the nose wheel flopping side to side by 20 degrees. I 

 talked to the second shop who was asked to fix the nose wheel and 

 pointed them to the MATCO axle solution. The problem is not we builders 

 who own and fly but the hired guns and other sellers that build an 

 aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Since we either do not have 

 deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, the litigant will try 

 and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate solution to the door 

 and will not implement the SB. Now for space to store another box.

 

  

 

 --

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:25 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

If you want to improve on Van's seal method, add a coat of CS3204

A-2(PR 1422 A-2) over the original B-2 sealant, before you install the

back baffle. It is a brushing compound intended to cover rivet heads

and fill any gaps in the B-2. Then put a coat of CS3600 (PR1005L)

sloshing compound over that. Every Mooney wet wing tank is sealed that

way. A belt and suspenders approach.



On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:

[quote] Agreed, John.  I don’t know what I’ll do when I get to the latch

 installation.  I’m still working on the fuel tanks and trying to figure out

 how to beef up the fuel tanks so when a passenger steps forward of the spar

 they don’t cause leaks around the rivets.  Here’s a case where this list has

 given me a heads up on a potential problem, at a point where I might be able

 to do something about it.  I’ll probably run my potential solution past

 Van’s, with the understanding that they will almost certainly not approve of

 it due to legal concerns.  I’m considering adding a doubler sheet under the

 skin as they did in the wingwalk area.



 But I understand that they have a business to run and that whatever I do as

 the manufacturer is strictly up to me.



 Jack Phillips



 #40610



 Raleigh, NC



 ________________________________



 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez

 Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:07 PM

 To: RV 10 group

 Subject: RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB



 Jack Phillips...you forgot to say something. Just build the plane better,

 never settle for, "Good Enough!" You and your family are going to be in the

 dam thing.  Van's is doing what they need to do in this litigious, greed

 driven society.



> From: pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net

> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

> Subject: RE: Re: From Van's on the door SB

> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:52:11 -0500

>

> 

>

> I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes

> on

> with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't like

> the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a

> HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything

> you

> like.

>

> I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the

> changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many

> feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage

> bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the

> case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and

> make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of

> some of the other kits out there?

>

> OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.

>

> Jack Phillips

> #40610

> Raleigh, NC

> Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting

> adventures with Pro-Seal

>

> --

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject: From Van's on the door SB

Thanks, Kelly.  Where can I find that CS3204 A-2?



Jack Phillips

#40610

Raleigh, NC



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum