Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

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

Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

mrobert569(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

They can't "soften" the language due to liability issues.  For those 

aircraft without  some type of locking device there could be a very real 

safety issue.  If Van's knew about this and did not pass it on they would be 

leaving themselves open to very large lawsuits, especially on the quickbuilt 

tanks where the tube is already partially installed. By partially I mean not 

tightened on, just installed hand tight.



Mike Robertson

Do Not Archive

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: LUCKYMACY(at)comcast.net (lucky)

Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

CC: support(at)vansaircraft.com, info(at)vansaircraft.com

Subject: Fuel Tank SB.  Someone please talk to Richard VG

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:57:08 +0000






Can someone relatively local like Randy get over to Van's during business 

hours and have a face to face discussion with Richard himself and see why 

they didn't soften up the language initially?  We might find something else 

like it wasn't just 2 or 3 RVs that had incidences or something more 

factual along those lines.



Ask for all of us on the 'net if he would reconsider softening the language 

like saying proseal would have been an acceptable method - just for all 

those thousands of flyers with insurance companies to worry about 

immediately?



Thanks,

Lucky



-------------- Original message --------------

From: "bdjones1965" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com>



 > 

 >

 > Not sure about everyone else out there, but I kind of doubt my flop tube 

is

 > "flopping" around very much at all. It may shift around side to side a 

little

 > and maybe once every year or two I'll really botch something and get 

negative.

 > Other than that, I'd be more worried about the weight wearing a hole in 

the

 > bottom of the tank where it's sitting in 99+% of the time.

 >

 > I find two things really curious. One is why Van has apparently crossed 

into

 > the grayness of liability and appears to have assumed some partial role 

as

 > manufacturer by sending out these Service Bulletins. This "SB" looks and 

smells

 > just like one you might get from a *manufacturer*. And his wording was 

just too

 > much like that of a manufacturer as well.

 >

 > Second, speaking of risk, I have several other hose fittings in my plane 

that

 > *will* cause engine stoppage - maybe I need to safety those as well. A 

flop

 > tube connection failure *may* cause stoppage, and should be recoverable 

by

 > switching tanks.

 >

 > This flop-tube item is pretty far down on the priority list for me. Not 

to

 > mention that I specifically remember tightening that nut very well.

 >

 > But now Van's has me concerned about the applicability of my insurance 

if I

 > don't comply with this overreactive "SB", while not being worried about 

the

 > airworthiness of my plane. Gee, I would expect this kind of treatment 

from

 > Cessna, Piper or Lycoming.

 >

 > Bryan RV-8

 > Houston, Texas

 >

 >

 >

 >

 > Read this topic online here:

 >

 > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=15240#15240

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >



Can someone relatively local like Randy get over to Van's during business 

hours and have a face to face discussion withRichard himself and see why 

they didn't soften up the language initially? We might find something 

elselike it wasn't just 2 or 3 RVs that had incidences or somethingmore 

factual along those lines.



Ask for all of us on the 'net if he would reconsider softening the language 

like saying proseal would have been an acceptable method - just for all 

those thousands of flyers with insurance companies to worry about 

immediately?



Thanks,

Lucky



-------------- Original message --------------

From: "bdjones1965" rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com



  -- RV-List message posted by: "bdjones1965" <RV_8PILOT(at)HOTMAIL.COM>



  Not sure about everyone else out there, but I kind of doubt my flop tube 

is

  "flopping" around very much at all. It may shift around side to side a 

little

  and maybe once every year or two I'll really botch something and get 

negative.

  Other than that, I'd be more worried about the weight wearing a hole in 

the

  bottom of the tank where it's sitting in 99+% of the time.



  I find two things really curious. One is why Van has apparently crossed 

into

  the grayness of liability and appears to have assumed some partial role 

as

  manufacturer by sending out these Service Bulletins. This "SB" looks and 

smells

  just like one you

  might get from a *manufacturer*. And his wording was just too

  much like that of a manufacturer as well.



  Second, speaking of risk, I have several other hose fittings in my plane 

that

  *will* cause engine stoppage - maybe I need to safety those as well. A 

flop

  tube connection failure *may* cause stoppage, and should be recoverable 

by

  switching tanks.



  This flop-tube item is pretty far down on the priority list for me. Not 

to

  mention that I specifically remember tightening that nut very well.



  But now Van's has me concerned about the applicability of my insurance if 

I

  don't comply with this overreactive "SB", while not being worried about 

the

  airworthiness of my plane. Gee, I would expect this kind of treatment 

from

  Cessna, Piper or Lycoming.



  Bryan RV-8

  Houston, Texas





  Read this topic on

  line here:



  http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=15240#15240





&g

  t;

Jim Anglin

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 47
Location: Independence, OR (7S5 Airpark)

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:21 am Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

I don't understand what you are saying re liability.  VAC didn't build the airplane so how can they be liable for someone who forgets to tighten a flare nut?  This whole thing is moronic.  Every time something comes loose and some idiot crashes are we going to have to go through this process?  As for locking device: that would be a flare nut wrench, the same type used on the rest of the fuel system...........duh!



Jim Anglin

HR II N144HR

DO NOT ARCHIVE

_________________
Jim Anglin
HR II N144HR

khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:09 am Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 I don't understand what you are saying re liability.  VAC didn't  

 build the airplane so how can they be liable for someone who  

 forgets to tighten a flare nut?  This whole thing is moronic.   

 Every time something comes loose and some idiot crashes are we  

 going to have to go through this process?  As for locking device:  

 that would be a flare nut wrench, the same type used on the rest of  

 the fuel system...........duh!


	


I have a hard time figuring out what ever one is whining about.  Van  

has an obligation to inform of us potential problems.  He has done  

that.  Now itt is up to each owner to decide whether he wants to  

perform the SB, or not.  There have been at least three events, so  

there will likely be more.  Some guys don't want to do the SB because  

they are sure their flare nuts are tight, and they will never come  

loose.  The guys who had the three events thought their flare nuts  

were tight too.



In aviation we need to learn from others' mistakes.  We won't live  

long if we have to make all the mistakes ourselves.  If we just put  

our head in the sand and say "It can't happen to me, because I'm a  

better builder (or a better pilot) than that idiot.", then we are  

setting ourselves up to have the same problem.



Kevin Horton         RV-8 (finishing kit)

Ottawa, Canada

http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8

sbuc(at)hiwaay.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:45 am Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

Kevin Horton wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

> I don't understand what you are saying re liability.  VAC didn't  

> build the airplane so how can they be liable for someone who  

> forgets to tighten a flare nut?  This whole thing is moronic.   

> Every time something comes loose and some idiot crashes are we  

> going to have to go through this process?  As for locking device:  

> that would be a flare nut wrench, the same type used on the rest of  

> the fuel system...........duh!

 I have a hard time figuring out what ever one is whining about.  Van  

 has an obligation to inform of us potential problems.  He has done  

 that.  Now itt is up to each owner to decide whether he wants to  

 perform the SB, or not.  There have been at least three events, so  

 there will likely be more.  Some guys don't want to do the SB because  

 they are sure their flare nuts are tight, and they will never come  

 loose.  The guys who had the three events thought their flare nuts  

 were tight too.

 In aviation we need to learn from others' mistakes.  We won't live  

 long if we have to make all the mistakes ourselves.  If we just put  

 our head in the sand and say "It can't happen to me, because I'm a  

 better builder (or a better pilot) than that idiot.", then we are  

 setting ourselves up to have the same problem.

Kevin raises some excellent and valid points (as usual).

As part of the hysteria this SB has generated, some statements have been 

made about the ominous ramifications of this SB on potential insurance 

claims. However, these statements seem to be made by individuals who 

THINK there will be insurance problems if the SB isn't complied with. In 

spite of calls from some listers for input from the insurance industry, 

there is an interesting amount of silence from the carriers concerning 

this matter. And I suspect this silence will continue since enforcing 

experimental SB's opens an almost unfathomable can of worms.

The fuel pickup SB is not the first service bulletin to be issued by 

Vans. Matter of fact, this is the sixteenth SB to be issued on RV's! I 

don't recall hearing the wailing and gnashing of teeth about insurance 

problems when the other SB's were issued, and I haven't heard anything 

about insurance payout difficulties concerning previous SB's.

Maybe it would be good to take a deep breath, allow the blood pressure 

to descend, and hold off on the dubious statements about the veracity of 

Mr. Van and his service bulletin. I suspect there is sufficient 

ambiguity in the FAA's interpretation of SB applicability to 

experimental aircraft to make it very, very difficult for insurance 

carriers to link claim payments to SB's. As has been pointed out 

previously, but somewhat drowned out in the noise, is the non-binding 

nature of experimental (or certificated) service bulletins.

Sam Buchanan

stein(at)steinair.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:45 am Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

I don't remember who or when this issue came up before, but it has.  Way

back when I was building my -6, there was some discussion about this issue

somewhere, I just don't remember when.  I do however remember it, because it

caused me to use a bit of proseal on my flare nuts when installing

them....and Lord knows with my laziness I wouln't have volutarily done any

extra work if there wasn't a reason for it...either someone suggested it

online, or told me about it - either way there was a reason I did that.



Cheers,

Stein.



[quote]--

randy(at)romeolima.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

 	  Quote: 	
		  > I don't understand what you are saying re liability.  VAC didn't

> build the airplane so how can they be liable for someone who

> forgets to tighten a flare nut?  This whole thing is moronic.

> Every time something comes loose and some idiot crashes are we

> going to have to go through this process?  As for locking device:

> that would be a flare nut wrench, the same type used on the rest of

> the fuel system...........duh!



 I have a hard time figuring out what ever one is whining about.  Van

 has an obligation to inform of us potential problems.  He has done

 that.  Now itt is up to each owner to decide whether he wants to

 perform the SB, or not.  There have been at least three events, so

 there will likely be more.  Some guys don't want to do the SB because

 they are sure their flare nuts are tight, and they will never come

 loose.  The guys who had the three events thought their flare nuts

 were tight too.



 In aviation we need to learn from others' mistakes.  We won't live

 long if we have to make all the mistakes ourselves.  If we just put

 our head in the sand and say "It can't happen to me, because I'm a

 better builder (or a better pilot) than that idiot.", then we are

 setting ourselves up to have the same problem.



 Kevin Horton         RV-8 (finishing kit)

 Ottawa, Canada

 http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8


	




I agree with Kevin's point of view completely, I've had a hard time figuring 

out what all the backlash is about too. A couple of further thoughts... as 

the manufacturer of the aircraft you don't have to ground your bird 

instantly, just put it on your list to get to at some reasonable point in 

the future, perhaps when you take it out of service for some other 

maintenance. In the mean time be aware of the potential problem and look for 

any signs of it.



There are two legal reasons why you want to comply at some point... 

insurance and sale of the aircraft. If you file an insurance claim for an 

accident that was clearly due to some other factor I'm sure the insurance 

company will pay. Of course if it's a fuel exhaustion accident of any kind 

they would fight it. Secondly, if you ever sell your plane any new owner 

will naturally want any/all SBs complied with.



Lastly, for the newer RV-7/8/9 style wings, you might consider taking the 

wings off to give yourself easy access. Although it might seem like a lot of 

work it really doesn't take that long, at least on an -8 -- been there, done 

that.



FWIW,

Randy Lervold

tcervin(at)valkyrie.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

Well said Sam. Vans doesn't recommend a few engine combinations we use 

either BUT you are the manufacture. Some builders use different wing tips, 

fuel delivery systems.....filters vs. gas collators is another example.

       The insurance companies acknowledge the risk of no two experimental 

aircraft being exactly alike and their premiums already reflect this. If 

Vans didn't build Quick Builds I doubt you would have seen any "CYA 

Recommendations" from them as "They" built those tanks.

                                                                             

                Tom in Ohio RV6-A (362CT)

                                                                             

                 DO NOT ARCHIVE

---

bo124rs(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

Has anyone even considered the following:  Van's sees a potential problem 

that could affect the lives of pilots flying kit planes purchased from them. 

  So........they say, "Hum, yes there are several such fittings in an RV but 

these in particular are probably never checked yearly as they can't be seen. 

  Hum, maybe we should "advise" the people out there to check these at their 

next FAA required inspection.  Joe chimes in "Hum, what if that Doe fellow 

bores a hole in the ground when the nut he thought was tight 5 years ago 

come loose and his lonely wife has a friend of a friend who know this guy 

who heard of a lawyer that is really good at what he does, never mind what 

we think of him or whether we would invite him to a cookout??  Lonely wife 

finds said "good" lawyer and good lawyer says, "heck yes, I'll take it and 

you don't owe me a thing, I am doing this to protect the world from this guy 

named Van, Vans, Vangruadorf...........however he spells his name"  Hums, 

says Van's.....we better say "Required", no better yet "Mandatory".  You 

know, we didn't like the way the 7 recovered from spins in the acro class so 

we, being the nice people we are sent out rudders free of charge.  See we 

like to take care of our customers, so in light of our caring for our 

customers we shall say "mandatory" because me's thinks people don't check 

this nut and we have learned not to like said "good" lawyer!!



Long story short, just maybe, just maybe Van's Aircraft is actually looking 

after us and covering their A$$ at the same time.  I'm obviously not flying 

but truly if I was, I'd get to it when I got too it, I'd just run of few 

"tests" now and then and adjust my cross country flying accordingly.



I've got some things I need to prime and it's been awhile since I did any 

priming.........rattle can is JUST as good as any double throw me down 

Sherwin Williams out there!!!!!



I think I'll do someone's taxes and see if I can make them pay........



Dana Overall

Richmond, KY i39

RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"

Finish kit

do not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		  


	


On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 

get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

George McNutt

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 30

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

Hi Dana



Dana Overall wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  snip --  Van's sees a potential problem that could affect the lives of pilots flying kit planes purchased from them. ------------- what if that fellow bores a hole in the ground when the nut he thought was tight 5 years ago 

come loose --------------------



  



Van's tech support people have been telling people that Van's "has 
	


assumed owners are checking these fittings at every annual". If that was 

the case why would they not give some consideration in the bulletin for 

someone who had just done his annual.



I don't mind Van's covering their a--, but it should be done with some 

consideration and forethought for their customers.

Instead of the "before further flight", wouldn't a SB (1) requiring a 

placard (change tanks in event of power loss dummy) and /or (2) minimum 

fuel 1/2 tank  until inspection completed have been better.



So lets hope Van hires a new SB writer, maybe someone from Lycoming who 

will not use the "allegedly" word. 



George in Langley BC

do not archive

bo124rs(at)hotmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:07 am Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca>

I don't mind Van's covering their a--, but it should be done with some

consideration and forethought for their customers.


	




George, just my point.  Gedorge if you want to placard your airplane that 

way as your means to address the alleged fuel issue, it is your airplane 

that you have built.  You have the right to do so, Van's can't make you, by 

way of grounding, belittleing, or telling dirty jokes about you around the 

water cooler:-)

A SB from a kit manufacturer, seems to me, to carry the same weight as a pre 

sport pilot "Alleged" "licensed" ultralight "pilot".  No slap at us who do 

indeed like to fly ultralights but what the #$%!(at)#$%.



Sorry, I probably shouldn't say this but for some reason this SB, out of 

many issued by Van's, reminds me of my parents telling me the hysteria 

generated by the radio rendition of "War of the Worlds"..............the sky 

is falling, the damn has burst, run for you lives.......oops my bad!!!!!



Heck, I'll go out on this vote limb.......Van's if you find something you 

want me to change, tell me, I'll get to it based on the importance I place 

on it for the aircraft I have built.



George, this is truly a very light hearted reply to your post.  It is 

nothing more than my own feelings, probably carries as much weight as a 

Van's SB.



Just keep in mind, again my opinion and you get what you pay for, Van's 

didn't issue this willy nilly.  They talked about it, hashed it out amongest 

themselves, typed up a draft, changed the draft until they agreed upon it's 

release and released it.  A lot of kit manufacturers would have swept it 

under the rug with that "something wrong, what do you mean, had to be the 

builder" attitude.



Primer, Primer, Primer............who needs it.

Dana Overall

Richmond, KY i39

RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"

Finish kit

do not archive



On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 

get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

bertrv6(at)highstream.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

Quoting G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca>:

 	  Quote: 	

 Hi Dana

 Dana Overall wrote:

 >snip --  Van's sees a potential problem that could affect the lives of

 pilots flying kit planes purchased from them. ------------- what if that

 fellow bores a hole in the ground when the nut he thought was tight 5 years

 ago

 >come loose --------------------

 >

 >

 >

 Van's tech support people have been telling people that Van's "has

 assumed owners are checking these fittings at every annual". If that was

 the case why would they not give some consideration in the bulletin for

 someone who had just done his annual.

 I don't mind Van's covering their a--, but it should be done with some

 consideration and forethought for their customers.

 Instead of the "before further flight", wouldn't a SB (1) requiring a

 placard (change tanks in event of power loss dummy) and /or (2) minimum

 fuel 1/2 tank  until inspection completed have been better.

 So lets hope Van hires a new SB writer, maybe someone from Lycoming who

 will not use the "allegedly" word.

 George in Langley BC

 do not archive

 Mr. George:

I cannot believe the amount of postings on this.  WHO CARES, YOU DO NOT

HAVE TO DO ANYTHING IF YOU WANT.  YOU CAN FLY WITH FLAT TIRES IF YOU WANT..

WHY THE COOMPLAINT... JUST IGNORE IT AND GO ON...

I DID MINE, LAST WEEK END, NO BIG DEAL... BUT I DECIDED TO DO IT.

IF VAN's come up with another sb. tomorrow,, fine with me..

let's give a rest..

Bert

rv6a

DO NOT ARCHIVE

 	  Quote:

highflight1(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:47 am Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

I understand maybe a little frustration because of having to dig back into

the wings to do this SB, but I don't understand what could be called the

"furor" about it.



It looks to me that people are a lot more upset about the fuel tank SB than

they are about the Lycoming "issue" that will require an average of about

$6000 to $8000 to comply once the parts are bought and the labor is paid

for.



I wonder if it's because RV builders are so spoiled nowadays with

pre-punched kits, QB kits, and so much prefab that's done for us that we

forget what Experimental kits were like just a dozen years ago.



I think we should all just do it, be thankful that Van's is on top of safety

issues (whether real or imagined), and look forward to some more SB's as

time goes on. This isn't the first, and it sure isn't going to be the last.

Go buy a used GA aircraft and have some REAL fun making sure that all AD's

have been complied with since the day it was built. Some GA aircraft would

make our RV's with its' SB's look like a walk in the park.



Vern W.

brucerv84us(at)hotmail.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

Amen Brother!



You should look at some of those aircraft at the airport tided down for 

months/years on end and then one day see a car pull up unchaulk that sucker 

and spit, sputter, pop the engine to life and take-off. No way man!



The end result of all this conversations, posts, mild cursing and argument 

to comply with the S/B is exactly what Van's intended to do with it, "IT HAS 

US ALL PAYING ATTENTION".



The new word at the airport, "To comply, Or not to comply.



Have fun, Fly safe,



Bruce Gray

RV8 Fuse

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com>

Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:46:46 -0600






I understand maybe a little frustration because of having to dig back into

the wings to do this SB, but I don't understand what could be called the

"furor" about it.



It looks to me that people are a lot more upset about the fuel tank SB than

they are about the Lycoming "issue" that will require an average of about

$6000 to $8000 to comply once the parts are bought and the labor is paid

for.



I wonder if it's because RV builders are so spoiled nowadays with

pre-punched kits, QB kits, and so much prefab that's done for us that we

forget what Experimental kits were like just a dozen years ago.



I think we should all just do it, be thankful that Van's is on top of 

safety

issues (whether real or imagined), and look forward to some more SB's as

time goes on. This isn't the first, and it sure isn't going to be the last.

Go buy a used GA aircraft and have some REAL fun making sure that all AD's

have been complied with since the day it was built. Some GA aircraft would

make our RV's with its' SB's look like a walk in the park.



Vern W.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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