Latest from Van‘s Greg:
Service Letter SL-00091 published
As mentioned a couple of times, by the intent of the airworthiness category no design guidelines, design standards, design review or design approval are applied by FAA prior to issuance of an experimental airworthiness certificate for an E-AB aircraft, just basic workmanship standards.
There is no need to keep stating such a silly thing. I don’t know anyone who thinks cracks would fall under a design standard. In this case it would fall under poor parts manufacturing workmanship.
The standard is whatever that particular DAR’s standard for safe is.
No, that kind of arbitrary authority does not exist for FAA DARs, except it appears in your imagination. Safe does not mean a structural design review by an unqualified person, against no criteria that apply to an experimental category aircraft.
No, that kind of arbitrary authority does not exist for FAA DARs, except it appears in your imagination. Safe does not mean a structural design review by an unqualified person, against no criteria that apply to an experimental category aircraft.
Can you reference or define exactly what a DAR can deny an airworthiness for? Once again, a crack is a flaw not a structural design.
I really don’t think most DARs would deny an airworthiness certificate for this but @LeSving was so adamant that a DAR can’t deny an airworthiness certificate but we all know that’s not true.
I really don’t think most DARs would deny an airworthiness certificate for this
DAR scope is much more basic and they don’t delve into anything at this level. Their inspection is more on the level of making sure nuts are lock wired and so on, plus completing paperwork to define operating limitations and test program. A DAR will be aware of this issue, as will the builder, and that engineering analysis to assist the builder has been completed by others. Unless there a huge visible crack the DAR won’t even address it.
Dan wrote:
Latest from Van‘s Greg:
The important part is perhaps this:
In addition, the team at Van’s Aircraft is completing customer specific laser cut parts lists for each individual kit based on the date each kit was crated (and when the quickbuild kit was assembled). These will be communicated directly to individual customers in the near future. Van’s will communicate additional information about the laser cut parts replacement program when these customer-specific lists are delivered.
RV8Bob wrote:
I really don’t think most DARs would deny an airworthiness certificate for this but @LeSving was so adamant that a DAR can’t deny an airworthiness certificate but we all know that’s not true.
I never said that. What I said was that the responsibility will always stay with the builder no matter what. Meaning a “DAR” cannot be held legally responsible for anything the builder has done. A “DAR” can certainly say that he will not sign anything before those bolts are secured, and before these bolts are replaced with correct size bolts and so on.
RV8Bob wrote:
Since the FAAs definition of airworthy for an experimental aircraft is “safe”. The standard is whatever that particular DAR’s standard for safe is.
As Silvaire points out, what you describe is an example how things definitely isn’t and definitely shouldn’t be.
LeSving wrote:
The important part is perhaps this:In addition, the team at Van’s Aircraft is completing customer specific laser cut parts lists for each individual kit based on the date each kit was crated (and when the quickbuild kit was assembled). These will be communicated directly to individual customers in the near future. Van’s will communicate additional information about the laser cut parts replacement program when these customer-specific lists are delivered.
That’s nothing really. It sounds like a big step forward to someone not familiar with the intricate details, but all it means is that they’re going to tell you based on your kit crating dates whether a kit may be affected or not. Pretty much every current builder already knows this, having compared their own crating dates to the dates the relevant laser-cut parts first appeared in inventory – a list of parts and dates Van’s has already published.
They won’t be telling anyone for sure whether their parts were laser cut or not – they’ll just be telling you specifically which ones to look out for. They don’t have any traceability data to tell a customer exactly what they got.
Here is what EAA recommends for FAA DAR inspection prior to issuing an Experimental Amateur Built airworthiness certificate. Quoting from the link:
The ASI/DAR, by use of the following guide, should be able to perform what amounts to an in-depth pre-flight that should reasonably assure that the aircraft will operate as intended.
The closest reference related to riveted joints is a recommendation to look at a sample of the builder’s rivet installations on the bench, but nothing on the plane itself. Here is the recommended scope of inspection for the aircraft structures:
Although FAA recommends it as a source for information, EAA has no regulatory authority. Presumably in generating this list they thought the DAR community needed some help. The intent is an inspection that is more than a normal pre-flight inspection but that does not include disassembly. It is noteworthy that they include a reminder of which way ailerons and trim tabs should move. The FAA certification of an E-AB aircraft does not include a detailed inspection or evaluation by an aeronautical design or construction expert (holding a DAR does not indicate either). I wouldn’t go looking for FAA representatives to help you in your business dealings with Vans.
You are correct the EAA has no authority. obviously they are trying to address the lack of guidance from the FAA. But now the DARs do have guidance from the FAA to inspect for LCPs. Of course, as always the guidance is still vague.
Regardless of the DARs the builders are the ones signing the airworthiness certificate. Van’s answers to them, not the FAA. Many builders will stick to the conservative approach when faced with conflicting guidance.
