@ccarlson, don’t pay too much attention to @LeSving, he literally thinks there would be no recourse if Van’s sent you a block of aluminum instead of quality parts. He will say:
“There is an expectation of quality” – OK. Define that expectation in terms of relevant industry standards used in production- and assessment of quality of parts used by amateurs when they build a specific aircraft design in their homes and garages. You will not find any such standard because such a standard does not exist.
There is this:
RV8Bob wrote:
There is this:
Yup, I did not want to wander too far from the consumer rights and protection legalities since those seemed to be the focus of the post.
The above said, and with AC 23-13A in mind, I did a thing… or 200… a while back. Since I wasn’t able to use my time to build* I invested time into my build another way.
When Van’s announced their testing program, I decided to speak to several aviation-industry qualified individuals and a well known source of aviation legal counsel about these issues. Three A&P/IA mechanics, an aerospace engineer (Ph.D.), and an aviation accident investigator told me there is no way I should consider using parts that are cracked or known to crack. Period. The legal folks suggested that if I were to willingly install such parts, that choice could come back to haunt me (read: criminal negligence) if an airplane I manufactured with those parts were to be involved in an accident, especially if there were to be loss of life. Regardless if an LCP was actually contributing factor to such an accident or not, the simple decision to use such parts could form a basis to attack the manufacturer for disregarding standard practices and willfully doing things that they reasonably knew or should have known could jeopardize public safety.
It all sounds a bit ridiculous at first blush, but consider the legal circus Cirrus Aircraft endured after the Cory Lidle SR-20 crash in 2006. Cirrus prevailed, but it wasn’t a cheap battle for them. I am not a litigious person, and I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” in life… but I do try to heed good practice as a general rule. I find that doing so tends to cut down on my liabilities and exposures. :)
There is also the a matter of insurability. If I were an underwriter for an insurance company, I don’t think I could be swayed to assume the financial risk of an aircraft built using parts produced by a process that is generally scoffed at by the aviation industry (as is reflected in AC 23-13A).
Per AC 23-13A:
Primary Structure. Primary structure is that structure which carries flight, ground, or pressurization loads, and whose failure would reduce the structural integrity of the airplane.
In my build, laser cut VS-702, 704, VS-705, VS-706, VS-707, and VS-803PP (emp kit delivered 1/11/2023) all cracked when dimpled. Those are all core parts of the vertical stabilizer which happens to support what is arguably the most powerful flight control on an airplane: the rudder. The vertical stabilizer and rudder most certainly do carry flight (aerodynamic) loads, and their failure would indeed significantly reduce the structural integrity of the airplane, especially after their failure results in a high speed CFIT event. Consequently, I am inclined to consider the vertical stabilizer a primary structure.
So, looking at the relevant bits…
6-2. What is the policy for operational flight with known cracks?
It is the Small Airplane Directorate’s policy to not allow continued operational flight with known cracks in primary structure. An airplane with a known crack in the primary structure no longer meets its type design and may no longer possess its type design strength.
6-3. Are there any exceptions to this policy?
a. The exceptions to this policy, to be taken on a case-by-case basis, are the following:
(1) Substantiation that the cracks are not in primary structure.
(2) Substantiation of the ability of single load path structure with known cracks to carry ultimate loads. Only in unusual circumstances, such as the difficulty of an operator in obtaining replacement parts, will this be allowed. The time allowed for replacement or repair must be as short as practical.
6-4. Which airplanes are covered by this policy?
This policy applies to all normal, utility, acrobatic, or commuter category airplanes, regardless of certification basis.
Based on all of the above, it seems to me that the use of parts known to be at substantial risk of developing cracks is a definite no-no.
And just to be REALLY, REALLY clear in all of this: I want Van’s to succeed. I love their airplanes, and I wish them no ill will whatsoever; however, as a paying consumer of their products, I am absolutely of the opinion that the right thing for them to do is to deliver parts produced in a manner consistent with accepted industry standards and their marketing materials (as in, what I paid for). I understand that will take time, and I don’t need everything at once. If they were to hook me up with the empennage stuff now-ish and wings & fuselage a few months later, that would perfectly okay with me (inline with their Sep 6 update where they said they would replace LCP free of charge [and without further qualification] upon request). Expecting me to pay for replacements as a result of their mistake is the opposite of the right thing.
* I know it is possible to build out of order with the plans, but my shop, tools, and materials are setup to start with the empennage, and I am not an experienced builder. I would rather do this one “by the book” starting on page 6-1.
ccarlson wrote:
Primary Structure. Primary structure is that structure which carries flight, ground, or pressurization loads, and whose failure would reduce the structural integrity of the airplane.
I am not an engineer, but all (real world, not online) conversations I have had with those who are in relation to this matter have indicated that they consider spars primary structure and ribs secondary structure. That may be convention, just like-minded thinking, or a formal definition – I don’t know.
The engineering question and the consumer rights question are separate, albeit related, issues. Van’s have indeed not shipped what they advertised and contracted for, but most builders are prevented from following a hardline consumer rights approach by their desire to complete the aeroplane. Incidentally, Van’s marketing materials for all kits -7 onwards make repeated references to everything being pre-punched, so it is not just the -14 that has this mis-sell issue.
Some with a combination of a very difficult engineering situation to resolve and a very simple consumer situation to resolve (e.g. have received multiple affected QB assemblies but have not done much / any work yet) may elect to take such an approach and just demand all their money back under threat of a credit card chargeback. I imagine those are the situations causing Van’s the most headaches, since for most others it is just a case of sending them some new parts to achieve something approaching satisfaction.
Maybe the practical solution will be to monitor the situation annually. Those rivet areas which are not visible can be inspected by drilling borescope holes; this is in any case highly desirable for ACF50 injection.
It will hit the value of kits involved in the relevant timeframe.
AC 23-13A is applicable to certified aircraft (part 23). More specifically this AC provides means to comply with Title 14 of part 23. It provide means, but not the only means.
Unless anyone has made an agreement with Vans that the aircraft is according to part 23, and you are actually building according to part 23, this is of zero legal interest.
I think I have read and heard that Vans use part 23 as some kind of “baseline”. I mean, who wouldn’t, or similar such standards.
Let’s for simplicity say this AC is “valid” in a legal sense. Then the only important thing is that Vans indeed is following it. They have through engineering and testing and inspections found applicable means to comply.
You should read Section 1 of this AC, not just pick out random parts.
But again for the x’th time. Vans is NOT the builder. The builder is the builder.
If you were building from plans then that might well be the case. But even then if I bought a bunch of spruce I would expect it to be of the quality I have ordered. Eg if I have ordered and paid for wood which has been weathered for 10 years and with an agreed percentage of knots, that is what I would expect to be supplied.
In this case Vans don’t appear to have done this.
gallois wrote:
Eg if I have ordered and paid for wood which has been weathered for 10 years and with an agreed percentage of knots, that is what I would expect to be supplied.
In this case Vans don’t appear to have done this.
Correct.
It is not an aviation matter and nothing to do with part 23 or any engineering aspect.
If you advertise a punched metal product and take the customer’s money then deliver a laser-cut product, you have not delivered what you advertised and that is consumer issue. Arguments about functional equivalence and/or engineering / build responsibility are irrelevant.
@LeSving wrote:
It provide means, but not the only means.
Agreed can you find accepted means that say flight with known cracks is ok?
Part 21 says experimental aircraft must be assembled with “instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard”
Where is the consensus standard that says flight with known cracks is ok?
@Lesving wrote:
But again for the x’th time. Vans is NOT the builder. The builder is the builder
Nobody is disagreeing with you. That’s why it’s extra important that we demand usable parts. Van’s will never say cracks are ok, for the reasons mentioned above. What does that mean? That means if a builder has a part that cracks he will have to buy a new part or use another acceptable means of repairing the part such as stop drilling the crack and adding a doubler piece along the rivet line in accordance with AC 43. Van’s really needs to get rid of filing out 1/3 of the dimple. That’s going to get people in trouble.
RV8Bob wrote:
Where is the consensus standard that says flight with known cracks is ok?
Where do you find any consensus standard regarding kits? What is a “consensus standard” supposed to be anyway? The “standard” is whatever processes and materials the kit manufacturer decides. In this case it doesn’t matter either way. Vans has gone way outside any “consensus” with the engineering, analysis and testing they have done. Why do you not trust this resent analysis and tests when you trust all the old analysis and tests they by them?
Bottom line is that if you follow Vans instructions of replacing/fixing stuff, the airplane will be exactly as airworthy as any other home built plane.
@LeSving wrote:
Vans has gone way outside any “consensus” with the engineering, analysis and testing they have done. Why do you not trust this resent analysis and tests when you trust all the old analysis and tests they by them?
I honestly don’t think Van’s is going to change the consensus about flying with known cracks. Even Van’s has not come out and said cracks are ok. What you said before that is just crazy. To imply there is no consensus standard on cracks. You can try to argue that but you would never find supporting documentation not even from Van’s.
No I don’t trust their testing on this. Nobody even knows exactly what they have done. It’s rather irrelevant anyway unless you repair every cracked part. I didn’t trust their testing in the past either. What I did was assume they relied on processes established over the last 100 years and good engineering software. They stepped outside of that box and now we see the results. That is also why I chose a design that has been proven. I would never be a launch customer.
