 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:47 pm Post subject: 10 SB |
 |
|
just talked with an IA friend about the service bulletin. It seems there was another local RV10 which left CHD and lost the door; he had difficulty landing due to an open baggage door and debris in the face; He lost the door and had it fixed. A while later he again lost the door in PAN. If I understand this situation correctly this was a purchased, not built, RV10. This may be the same RV10 that I saw last month. A local IA was asked to fix the nose wheel on a 10. The 10 had just been annualed by another shop and passed the nose wheel even though it wobbled 15-20 degees each side. Shimmy was horrible and owner (not builder) asked that it be fixed. I pointed them to the Matco axle solution and problem was solved.
For aircraft under construction the builder can call the model anything he desires. If I recall , Dan's aircraft (N289DT) model was Trish's ride home. Spoken as the owner of the only E-AB "heavy".
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:50 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB
Tim, I have been thinking the exact same thing about a latch in the center that can only be engaged from inside the cockpit.
It would still require a high level of checklist discipline. I agree with you on the lock, if they want in, they will get in.
I find that a cover is plenty good (out of sight out of mind) and if I ever go to Mexico or the Baja my plan is to just take off the outside door handles.
I am getting the sense that this SB is a CYA for Van's more than anything from some of the comments here, VAF and personal e-mails.
Again, that is disappointing to me. From a great solution standpoint on a scale from 1-10 I give this solution a 1 or 2.
Oh well, I think a 10 can be achieved for the same cost as the proposed.
All I would hope for is the verbiage on the SB to change from:
Required Action: Install Door Safety Latch to Required Action: Optional Door Safety Latch
Time of Compliance: Before Further Flight to Time of Compliance: Optional
I do believe some great ideas and great solutions will and are coming out of this so this probably I won't take up any more of my time and I will start coming up with some ideas that we all can share. There are a ton of super smart and talented people on this list.
I just can't wait to see what comes out of Goeff's camp. I am expecting a voice activited with a thumb print sensor. And from Tim I am looking for an iPhone app that both opens and closes the doors and has a built in "Door Ajar" alarm that is displayed on the iPhone screen.
Scott Schmidtscottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com
N104XP
675 Safe Hours
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 10:39:47 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)>
I've been following the SB thread since it started, deciding not
to get into it right away. It seems that usually people start
going off on tangents about how crappy the door design is, or
how various door designs would be superior...never mind that
without some major work/time/expense there's no real way any
builder will have an improved door design. The kit "is what it
is", and if you really want the pains of major door redesign,
then hey, I'm all for it, but I believe that when it comes right
down to reality, most of you would rather just finally have a
nice flying RV-10 to fly, for a reasonable price, in a minimal
amount of years of built time. Any departure from the plans
usually adds time and expense, and a door redesign would involve
both, and only lots of testing and time would end up proving
if it were even a successful modification.
Then it comes to handles, latches, locks, and all that stuff.
Sure, there are some nice flush latches. No, Van's didn't
design in door locks. Yeah, you can buy add-on internal
handles. In reality, I don't really view ANY of these things
as significant items. They're almost entirely cosmetic,
and many of those cosmetics may mean something to various
individuals, but others may not care a bit. For me, I'm
perfectly happy with the looks of the internal door handle.
I don't mind the external handle, although I've seen nicer
than mine. And, I don't mind the door not locking. I maintain
that I'd much prefer a door ALARM system to a door LOCK system,
because I just want to scare them away BEFORE they rip
my fiberglass apart on the door, or break the plexi on
my window. But that again is just a personal perspective.
None of these add-ons are really significant.
The exception to these insignificant add-ons is the addition
of the rivethead/iflyrv10.com door pin receivers made out
of aluminum. I really wish that during my build, I would
have had the opportunity to have these, and know all the things
we know today. I think a new builder is crazy not to build
those out of aluminum. I'm not necessarily convinced that
for someone like me, with completed doors, it's an easy
upgrade to try to cut my pin ends and thread in the magnetic
ones, so I haven't gone that route. I'm also not a huge
fan of permanent or electro magnets in the doors, as I know
that I've heard enough about how sensitive good magnetometers
are to know that I'd rather avoid magnets if possible. My
doors have glassed over screws on the outside, and I just
haven't wanted to tackle any pin modifications right now.
I really HAVE been meaning to order the aluminum guides
though. I'd love to have those, and I've lost enough to
chipped paint and fiberglass from that rear pin. My
original idea was an embedded stainless striker plate to
protect the paint, and some day I'd love to be motivated
enough to fix that.
From a functional standpoint I think the doors are fine.
They work, and I've flown now over 585 hours with them and
am not disappointed at all, other than the rear pins that
have chipped my paint. From a safety standpoint, I know
my pins go THROUGH the metal door frame, and I know that
when I latch the door all the way, it's a definite lock,
and I can't rotate my lever at all. So once I button my
family into the plane and inspect the door gaps, I know
that we're not going to lose the door.
My plane was doing it's first flight just before Van's
came out with the door warning lights. I still have the
bag of hardware on the bench, awaiting my installation.
I've read Scott's comments about how EVERYONE should
have warning lights. I can't disagree. I think warning
lights are a great idea. I also like Vic's idea of
adding a throttle position sensor to them so that they
don't light up when you're at low power for ground taxi...
because you don't want to become complacent. Personally
though, I feel that my extra-diligent operation of the
doors is REINFORCED by my lack of lights. I know a lot
about a lot of incidents that happen. People tend to
tell me when they hear things. I hadn't heard about the
recent one a couple weeks ago though. Anyway, there have
been enough departed doors that I share the concern deeply
that other builders have. But, I feel that the concern
is not for the doors....it's for the PILOTS. If you build
a door per original plans, and inspect it properly before
flight, and have pins that extend properly, you will NOT
lose a door. If I had lights, and started to look for
the lights every time in lieu of a door gap inspection,
I would become complacent and reliant on that circuitry.
Yes, you can make those light systems pretty bulletproof,
and perfectly aligned and activated...but you can't take
a sloppy pilot checklist who's rushing through his preflight
while trying to race against...well, any of the pressures
that push us, and force him to look at the lights. That
is NOT to say the lights aren't a good idea. But they
are NOT an acceptable substitute for a good door gap
inspection either. We know what happens to these doors if
they're not latched, so nothing short of a perfect
inspection is acceptable. If you give a perfect inspection,
then any and all hardware additions really, truly,
aren't necessary. They're all band-aids against poor
pilot awareness. But, for the record, I do think
the lights are a good idea. I actually have a to-do item
on my calendar that I look at weekly, to order a door
alarm system and once I find the right system, I plan
to install it with the door pin sensors and lights to
provide a loud horn alarm that I can engage with a key
FOB, as a theft deterrent, with the side benefit of having
door latch indicator lights.
Now on to the new SB. I agree, it shouldn't be mandatory.
It would have been nice to have them engage the RV-10
ownership for an acceptable fix, but they didn't. I agree
that the latch is ugly, especially from the outside.
I'm pretty confident that I won't be putting it in, at least
as-delivered. I don't want that rectangular tab outside
and the open slot for water entry any more than many people
do. I don't think it's a bad idea though, either. I think
it's not truly a NECESSARY addition, but it is a safety
device, and therefore it may prevent some operational issues
that are pilot induced, so I actually support those who feel
that it's necessary. I say GO FOR IT. If you like that
"feel good" addition to the door latching, great. I agree
that it should NOT be a mandatory SB...especially since
there are alternate methods to accomplish the same thing that
may actually look/work better and be far more visually
acceptable at the same time. Regardless, I don't think
I plan to install that particular design as delivered. I
would be more inclined to perhaps leave the slot on the
door, but NOT put the tab on the outside. Think about this
for a second, for all you people who want door locks....
Envision the same mechanism, but with just the slot.
through the slot you stick a long allen-key type key
rod. Inside the latch is a hole that this key fits
in. So, when you come up to the plane and want to
open the door, you insert the key and tip the latch.
What is the downside? Well, if you're unconscious
in the plane after a crash, rescuers can't open that
latch. But, if they can open the door handle, do you
REALLY think that one single latch is going to prevent
them from getting to you, considering how weak the
door attachment is anyway? I highly doubt it. A screwdriver
jammed in the door gap so they could open it enough to
rip the door off is about all it would take. Yeah, maybe
not perfect. You don't like the idea? I don't blame
you....I'd rather have no center latch at all.
Or how about this....you make the latch not just spring
loaded, but lock-openable from the inside. So now you
can have the "key" function as described above, but as
part of an emergency checklist you take the opportunity
to disengage that lock. Why worry about disengaging it...
the door pins will hold the door anyway. So you disengage
the lock, then do your emergency landing.
Or, take it another step further....leave an external
operating latch mechanism, but change it to a button of
some sort that has added mechanics to operate the latch.
I would be much more likely to leave a button on the outside
of my door than that square tab.
Still, none of those ideas really turn me on. I still
think that a properly latched door that is diligently
inspected, is not a worry. My final idea is one that
I've been bouncing around in my own head. I picture
attacking it from the other side...the bottom. How about
a door latch pin, L-shaped rod, that is built in to the
sidewall of the airframe by your seat. This pin can be
manually lifted, inserting the pin through the bottom
of the door. To reinforce the door, you drill a hole and
make a fiberglass hard point in the door at that spot.
So you lift the pin, it goes into the door bottom, and
then you fold the "L" tab of the pin to the side so it
isn't sticking out at you....maybe even add a machined
block into that sidewall that has 2 L-shaped recesses,
where it can recess slightly in the locked and unlocked
position. Again, this latch is only activated from inside
the cockpit, preventing rescuers from unlocking that
lock....but again, I'm SURE you could kick that door out
if that were the only pin, and I'm SURE that they could
rip it off from the outside if they needed to....and
that's in the much smaller chance that you have an
actual survivable crash....the chances are higher that
you'll be a sloppy pilot and lose the door. But, during
any portion of flight where you worry about off-airport
landings... (for instance, as I'm flying over water,
enroute to the Bahamas), you just pull that pin to the
un-latched position. You don't NEED that latch to be
secured, if the rest of the door is secured. In fact,
if you just TESTED that latch before flight, it would
PROVE your pins are secured on the door sides, and you
probably don't even need to leave the door center latch
in place. But, if you can JUST remember that this latch
is something you need to open before an emergency landing,
then it would be a fine method of compliance, and I
bet you could hide it visually better than most other
method.
I've also liked Seano's mechanical methods of adding a
3rd pin, operated by the latch. For people just starting
the build, I would actually think that if this issue
is one you're passionate about, then THAT is probably your
BEST way to deal with it. I'd LOVE to have that option
be one that an already built-and-painted door could have
added, but I doubt that's possible. I'm not obviously
passionate enough about it to rip open my door and build
such a thing, but for a new builder, hey, get him to
give you the drawings and spend some time on it...you
can avoid this ugly-a$$ latch that the SB calls for if you
do.
So the door stuff is an argument I really don't care to dive
in too deeply to. I think it all comes down to the pilot.
I think there are many good ways to prevent the problem
even with a stupid pilot. But to date, I'm not finding
any good ways to really fix the issue mechanically, in an
ideal way, on an already painted RV-10....so, I maintain
my added diligence. I have no big worries. I have 585
happy hours with the design as it is now. Can it be done
better?
[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]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:02 pm Post subject: Re: 10 SB |
|
|
I know I'm not the first to say this, but IMHO the real fix is to make the toothed racks in the door handle mechanism 50% longer, so that the handle has to rotate nearly 180 degrees to full open. Then, when closed, you'd have much more pin engaged - hopefully so much (needs testing) that the front pin, alone, could keep the door closed.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:23 pm Post subject: 10 SB |
|
|
That is certainly a possibility. A larger gear and longer steel bars could insure a full 180 degree throw to open or close the door; Even there the nut on the stick could thwart the solution. The problem is that we built experimental to avoid the nanny state (spelled FREEDOM) but others with more money than PIC capability have purchased these aircraft and think they are built to FAR 23 standards and conformity. The repeat offender term applies not only to repeat builders but repeat door failures for the same PIC.
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:06 pm Post subject: 10 SB |
|
|
Miller John wrote:
| Quote: | I have just written Van's to support Scott's suggestion.
Remember that SBs are optional in the FAA's eyes, not mandatory.
OK, so they just slap you with 91.13:
|
Sec. 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may
operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger
the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No
person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air
navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft
for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving
or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as
to endanger the life or property of another.
If they want you, they will get you. Trust me.
Linn
| Quote: |
And a previous post on keeping this in our hands rather than letting
some insurance adjuster get their hand in the mix is good advice.
I'm waiting for a more elegant solution for retrofit from some of our
excellent CNC engineers!!
grumpy
do not archive
On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Scott Schmidt wrote:
> I suggest that all RV-10 builders and flyers with serial numbers write
> Van's at info(at)vansaircraft.com <mailto:info(at)vansaircraft.com>
> I have done the same and have asked Van's to retract the Service
> Bulletin and offer the latch as an additional and optional latch just
> as the indicator lights were offered.
>
> I want to summarize what I have heard here.
> Issues with the door will arise if:
> -Poor door construction causing a bow during flight (Construction
> error) (Fix: Re-build door or add Van's center latch)
> -Pins are not inserted far enough into the aluminum frame
> (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build pins to extend into aluminum frame)
> -Door handle interlock is not engaged (Construction error and/or pilot
> error) (Fix: Ensure handles are locked before flight, possible rebuild
> of interlock)
> -Door pins were locked outside of cabin (Pilot error)(Fix: Add door
> check to checklist)
>
> I am fine with Van's offering this as an optional kit but when they
> say on the service bulletin that it is mandatory, I have a problem.
> This is 100% different from the previous SB where we added stiffeners
> to the vertical stabilizer and empenage.
>
> I want everyone to fly safe and keep our insurance as low as possible,
> I don't see this as the solution though.
> We need to take personal responsibility to build to the highest
> quality and use our checklists thoroughly.
> Any system that is put into place (such as our checklists) is never
> fixed with more protection devices, system only work and are improved
> through training and discipline.
>
> This solution is like adding a fixed gear to the bottom of a
> retractable landing gear aircraft. It will be there just in case you
> don't put the gear down.
>
> The warnings lights and center latch should be optional as 100% safe
> flight can be accomplished with the stock system. I do feel there are
> may pilots flying safely without even the lights because of their
> training and checklist discipline. The experimental category will
> always have construction issues and must accept personal
> responsibility for that and not burden the whole fleet with the
> quality shortcomings of the few.
>
> I want everyone to fly safe, have fun and explore this world with
> their planes and I appreciate Van's offering a system that solves a
> problem that a few of RV-10's have with the doors bowing as a total
> replacement of the door is very expensive.
>
> Again, please write Van's and ask for the removal of this SB and make
> it optional.
>
> Scott Schmidt
> scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com <mailto:scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jim Berry <jimberry(at)qwest.net <mailto:jimberry(at)qwest.net>>
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list(at)matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sat, January 16, 2010 11:24:03 AM
> *Subject:* Re: 10 SB
>
> *
>
> ====================================
> tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ====================================
> nics.com
> ====================================
> w.matronics.com/contribution
> ====================================
>
> *
>
=
*
*
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronrvbuilder(at)bigpond.c
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:26 pm Post subject: 10 SB |
|
|
I just received my kit of parts for the Door latch SB courtesy of John Cox – thanks John!!
The latch mod is certainly a very agricultural piece of design. I am with Scott and the growing chorus to write to Vans and recommend a review of the ‘mandatory’ nature of this SB.
I’ll watch with interest for the more elegant solutions I’m sure the more enterprising builders will propose.
And I’ll continue flying in the meantime.
Cheers
Ron
VH-XRM, flying in Oz
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Sunday, 17 January 2010 6:31 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB
I suggest that all RV-10 builders and flyers with serial numbers write Van's at info(at)vansaircraft.com
I have done the same and have asked Van's to retract the Service Bulletin and offer the latch as an additional and optional latch just as the indicator lights were offered.
I want to summarize what I have heard here.
Issues with the door will arise if:
-Poor door construction causing a bow during flight (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build door or add Van's center latch)
-Pins are not inserted far enough into the aluminum frame (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build pins to extend into aluminum frame)
-Door handle interlock is not engaged (Construction error and/or pilot error) (Fix: Ensure handles are locked before flight, possible rebuild of interlock)
-Door pins were locked outside of cabin (Pilot error)(Fix: Add door check to checklist)
I am fine with Van's offering this as an optional kit but when they say on the service bulletin that it is mandatory, I have a problem.
This is 100% different from the previous SB where we added stiffeners to the vertical stabilizer and empenage.
I want everyone to fly safe and keep our insurance as low as possible, I don't see this as the solution though.
We need to take personal responsibility to build to the highest quality and use our checklists thoroughly.
Any system that is put into place (such as our checklists) is never fixed with more protection devices, system only work and are improved through training and discipline.
This solution is like adding a fixed gear to the bottom of a retractable landing gear aircraft. It will be there just in case you don't put the gear down.
The warnings lights and center latch should be optional as 100% safe flight can be accomplished with the stock system. I do feel there are may pilots flying safely without even the lights because of their training and checklist discipline. The experimental category will always have construction issues and must accept personal responsibility for that and not burden the whole fleet with the quality shortcomings of the few.
I want everyone to fly safe, have fun and explore this world with their planes and I appreciate Van's offering a system that solves a problem that a few of RV-10's have with the doors bowing as a total replacement of the door is very expensive.
Again, please write Van's and ask for the removal of this SB and make it optional.
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com
From: Jim Berry <jimberry(at)qwest.net>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 11:24:03 AM
Subject: Re: 10 SB
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
0123456789
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
