RV8Bob wrote:
I’m not trying to argue that a legal industrial standard exists. I am unaware of any, but feel that could be argued about nearly everything and probably keeps courts busy
That’s not how it works. There is an agreement up front, specified in a contract, that this or that standard shall be used and followed for that particular task and so on. There could be several to chose from, and several can be used. Some are general, some are very specific. This makes disputes simpler and much less frequent. When no standard exists, one will usually use a “best practice manual” written by someone. If not even that exist, as is mostly the case with stuff I am working with, then you simply have to work closely with the customer. In most cases that’s no real issue, since the customer has virtually bottomless pockets anyway (governments, oil companies, energy companies). They know roughly what they want, but not exactly, and have no clue how to achieve it. Thus, the risk of screw ups and setbacks is high, and this is explicitly mentioned in the contract. There are standard contracts for this kind of work (one offs and tailor made stuff).
With Van’s vs a whole bunch of private individuals, the whole scene is very different. None has bottomless pockets. No standard has been agreed up front. Van’s is the one with the definite competence and also serve as the consultant. Each aircraft is an experiment all by itself. Even the production of parts is experimental. It’s not that different from my normal everyday work, but the scene is very different.
RV8Bob wrote:
For any given amateur-built airplane there are two key places where the safety of the finished aircraft is determined: in the kit design and manufacturing process, which Van’s controls and governs; and in the build process which is, of course, the realm of the individual building the airplane in their shop
Meaning you are stuck with whatever Van’s choses to send and do : “and manufacturing process, which Van’s controls and governs”. It’s spelled out right there, and every customer should know what that means. For a certified aircraft, Van’s would not control and govern the design and manufacturing process. Every single thing would need to adhere to some aviation standard. Then verification of that this is indeed the case, is done by a third party (certification) by some authority. And you as an amateur builder wouldn’t be allowed to touch a single rivet.
RV8Bob wrote:
I am however certain this will be tried in the court of public opinion and it’s not looking good.
Hmm, court. Good luck with that.
@LeSving, in case the English language expression didn’t come through, “court of public opinion” means that lasting and irreversible bad PR for Vans will be the result of this episode, with an effect on their future business. Could be, or not. Crisis management seems to me an art.
US homebuilders do tend to forgive and forget, recognizing the shared responsibility for airworthiness, as long as they feel the idea the vendor is trying. Many people even forgave Jim Bede, who while being the pioneer in kit build E-AB marketing was a compete fraud, obviously unlike Vans who started in the same early ‘70s era but grew the business slowly and credibly. Rutan and Van learned by watching. The second prototype BD-5 is stored unairworthy in the hangar across from mine with ‘a million’ unsold skins, ribs etc and seeing it occasionally brings a flood of memories from my childhood, mainly concerning people who bought kits but never received all the parts and never flew.
Silvaire wrote:
“court of public opinion” means that lasting and irreversible bad PR for Vans will be the result of this episode, with an effect on their future business
OK, thanks 
Sort of a “high society” lynch mob? I’m not sure how that is going to work out. The “audience” here is very small, zero interest from the general public, even only limited interest among non-experimental GA pilots. And when at least 99% of that audience will simply dismiss this as the normal whining from individuals who have gotten involved in stuff they are not cut out to get involved with? (which may or not be true, but certainly this will be the counter “public court”, even if it surfaces as a non spoken whisper within communities)
I for one would definitely work with Van’s if I were one of the “victims”. This would definitely be what cuts the losses most, and it’s also what’s most healthy for your soul and well being. They have already stated they will replace parts free of charge where needed. The losses for each individual seems to be minor to me, in all but extreme cases, which Van’s may treat separately anyway. The work they are doing now in all openness, is an example that will be used for all future. But I understand the anger.
@LeSving, bad PR which this is, has the potential to ruin a company. It doesn’t matter the size of the customer base.
Vans now have to crisis manage this and how they do it and how successful they are will determine the future of the company.
Imagine you are in the market to build your own aircraft. Most would do due diligence and for many that will amount to reading reviews.
Up to now Vans has built a good brand, this can be witnessed by reading reviews and ga forums.
Would you choose to build a Vans, today?
Also Vans have carried a good price for people buying pre built aircraft. Much of this is down to confidence that the aircraft builder is starting with parts formed and drilled so they fit together and don’t rely so much on the individual expertise of the builder. Would you pay a high price for a pre built Vans today, however professional the builder?
Whilst some of course will others will put their money into a different kit from another manufacturer. The second will be a much larger percentage of this market unless Vans manage this crisis in an exemplary manner. This is much harder and more expensive to do now than it would have been had they reacted better when the problems first surfaced.
Its going to cost them.
RVs remain arguably the best “homebuilts” (and their popularity confirms this) but probably what will happen is that RVs built in the last couple of years will be under a lot more scrutiny when they come up for sale. Prices of used planes (not to mention everything else) are falling fairly rapidly now anyway…
There are very few “professional builders” especially in Europe. For most owners who actually built the one they fly (some small %) it will be the first and last they built. That is how this mess-up got as far as it got. Most people didn’t know what to expect and what to look for.
I’ve found this thread interesting, though not directly impacted. I have been looking at home-built (UK) aircraft kits. One thing that this eposide as raised in my mind (the court of public opinion?) is how non-US responsible organisations (the LAA in the UK) will view the situation. For example, the LAA has set an airframe life of 500 hours for the Sling Tsi. There may well be other limits for other aircraft I simply haven’t look deeply enough. However, for the RV-10 there is no such limit. Given that all the issues discussed here are cracking & metlurgy these are fatigue issues so will there be airframe life restrictions placed on RVs?
Will this impact Rans? Yes. I had an RV-10 on my (very) short list of potential aircraft. Its not on it anymore.
Peter wrote:
There are very few “professional builders” especially in Europe. For most owners who actually built the one they fly (some small %) it will be the first and last they built. That is how this mess-up got as far as it got. Most people didn’t know what to expect and what to look for.
Riveting is the easiest part of the built. Period. One can learn to rivet with a gun in a single day. Inspecting parts for cracks after dimpling and riveting is a good practice.
I do remember the early posts on vansairforce on the subject. Allegedly Vans technical support had said that the laser cut parts in question are good to go, but if they would crack, Vans would replace those parts. Everyone was well aware of that. Number of views of the thread, long time ago was in thousands. It’s 54 000 today.
Some say, that the cracks are too small to detect with a naked eye and are hidden behind primer. Maybe that’s the case, maybe not. As I said earlier, I trust that Vans will solve the problem and will go to the bottom of this.
Having seen a few “professionally built” RVs I have to day that it’s a mixed experience. Best quality demands lots and lots of man-hours, not necessarily “professional builders”, sure it helps.
Neil_F wrote:
For example, the LAA has set an airframe life of 500 hours for the Sling Tsi. There may well be other limits for other aircraft I simply haven’t look deeply enough. However, for the RV-10 there is no such limit.
Vans said that the structure of RV12 should be good go fro 30 000 h. This is the only RV built with pulled rivets
Neil_F wrote:
had an RV-10 on my (very) short list of potential aircraft. Its not on it anymore.
I’can very well understand and support your decision. Homebuilts are not for everybody. Some folks expect parts traceability, it’s a reasonable ask. Other people expect parts to be fit of purpose, again a reasonable demand. Freedom to cross international borders in IFR etc. Choosing a homebuilt means accepting certain limitations.
On the whole, aircraft purchase is a serious expenditure and I for one wouldn’t put too much trust in information posted on social media, especially when jury is stil out as is the case in this matter
gallois wrote:
Would you choose to build a Vans, today?
I’m building one as we speak and I can’t wait to see it fly!
Trust me, angry posts on this board don’t discourage me.
@RV14 wrote:
I’m building one as we speak and I can’t wait to see it fly!
Trust me, angry posts on this board don’t discourage me.
I’m glad there are builders like you that don’t mind being test pilots for unproven designs and techniques. Without you the home built aircraft world wouldn’t be what it is today.
We all have our own risk tolerance and methods to mitigate risk. Mine included picking an older design that has a proven track record and hopefully a majority of the design flaws ironed out. Even though I knew it would be a lot easier if I didn’t have to match drill.
In my opinion Van’s changing their manufacturing to a known problematic method to such a vast extent, on structural components, without good quality control, or a quick way to reverse the process, was just reckless and made us all test pilots.
@RV8Bob, with all due respect, you repeatedly post very strong statements covering aircraft construction and I didn’t notice you mentioning any source data other than social media. Would you fell comfortable sharing with us your background and professional track record?
Are you an aeronautical engineer? Did your work experience include design and / or manufacturing of riveted aircraft structures?
Just humbly asking and for the record, I’m non of the above.
