What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Crankshaft Seal Blowout In Flight and Emergency Landing RV-7A

N731DM

I'm New Here
About a month ago I launched on a flight from the Denver area to northwestern New Mexico through the Colorado mountains in my RV-7A. I left the airport trimmed for takeoff power and climbed rapidly to about 10k msl before trimming for cruise climb. While leaning I noticed that my oil pressure had dropped to about 35psi. I immediately cranked a 180 degree turn, pulled power and called the tower to declare an emergency. On the way back to the airport I monitored oil pressure and had occasional excursions below 25psi but none for any extended period of time. I made the airport with ease and did not require the assistance from the fire trucks that had been rolled out for me.

Unlike the RV-8 with the blown crank seal, my plane lost its oil out the sides of the cowl through the piano hinges and out the bottom of the cowling. There was very little on the windscreen and except for low oil pressure there was no indication that anything was amiss. I did not know how bad it was till I landed and got out of the plane. The accompanying pictures show the oil streaking down the sides of the plane. The bottom was much worse.

When I removed the cowl, it was evident that the loss of oil was from a blown crank seal. One side was completely blown out and oil was everywhere. My engine had about a quart of oil left in the sump when I drained it. I decided to remove the engine and have my engine shop tear it down. Luckily I did, the main bearings were trashed but the rest of the engine was in good shape. It is now being overhauled.

Once the engine was out I began searching for the cause of the seal failure. In September, 2013 I installed the AntiSplat oil separator with the saddle mount and vacuum valve to help keep my belly clean. That was 165 hours ago. After talking to AntiSplat I removed the saddle mount and vacuum valve and found two items. First, the rivet that holds the vacuum valve together had failed and was lying in engine side of the valve (see pic). This allowed the backing plate on the other side to float free. Blowing through the failed valve showed restriction through the valve toward the exhaust. There was no restriction of flow back toward the engine. Second, the pipe from the valve through the saddle mount was almost completely coked up. There was about an eight inch hole in the coke greatly restricting flow (see pic). I took a pen and attempted to push it through the coked up oil. It did break but it required substantial force to break through the coke. I shot two videos of the mount and valve (http://youtu.be/le1IfyriQ3g and http://youtu.be/LwDsJWxmub0)

I believe the crank seal failure was caused by over-pressuring of the crankcase caused by the AntiSplat products. It is hard to lay the blame for the over-pressuring to either the vacuum valve or the saddle mount. The valve was defective and the saddle mount was almost completely closed off. Either or both in conjunction could have caused the problem. If you have one of these systems on your plane ? Beware. Antisplat has a service bulletin concerning these problems and attempted to notify owners. Unfortunately, I did not receive this notification. If you have not seen it, go to their web site. Also, make sure you have their Safety Bypass Kit installed. As for me, I will run the air/oil separator, but will never again install the saddle mount or vacuum valve on my plane. I was very lucky to have made it back to the airport and will not take that chance again.
5d5r3s.jpg

1z4zkh1.jpg

b8k4kh.jpg
 
Welcome to VAF!

David, first post, and it is a major biggie. Welcome to VAF:D

Good job flying the plane, very glad you are here to write up the experience instead of the NTSB doing it.

This issue of the air/oil separator has been hashed out many times in the past------
 
This issue of the air/oil separator has been hashed out many times in the past------

You're not the first to have a problem with this setup... and unfortunately you probably won't be the last!

With a fresh OH you should have a nice tight engine, my suggestion for what its worth is remove it and live with a little oil on the belly :D
 
Mike, your comment-----This issue of the air/oil separator has been hashed out many times in the past------makes it sound to me like you are implying that this is old news. Nothing left to discuss--move along. I think quite the opposite. Here seems to be another purchaser of the Anti-Splat product that did not get any notification from the manufacturer, in spite of claims to the contrary.

I can't help but think the OP is VERY lucky. A flight in mountainous terrain with a fortunate result.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I can't help but think people are putting their lives in serious jeopardy.

Mark
 
You're not the first to have a problem with this setup... and unfortunately you probably won't be the last!

With a fresh OH you should have a nice tight engine, my suggestion for what its worth is remove it and live with a little oil on the belly :D

Amen to that!
 
Good job

Congrats on getting your bird back safe and sound. It could have been a lot worse.

Sorry you had to be the ginny pig on the clean belly contraption. Those things are neat when they work, and when they don't, well, hey, it's expermential!

Seriously, glad you lived to tell your story for others who can now benefit.

Cj
 
Time to remove Antisplat Air /Oil sep

Sorry to hear of your misfortune but great job flying the airplane.

I have read and heard all about the coking up of the breather line when plumbed into the exhaust and I still have the system in use.
After reading about the first incident of a blown crankshaft seal I now am seriously considering removing the whole Antisplat Air/Oil gizmo.

To the OP:
Was your reed valve supplied by Antisplat?

Glad you are ok.
 
Moderator ?

Very Happy David got down safely! Good job. Sorry you missed the big discussion here on VAF about this very thing. David, do you have any suggestions as to getting the word out?

Moderator: Wouldn't this SECOND alert (seal blow out) reach more people in "Safety" - with a modified title for all to read?
 
Last edited:
Better Quality Check Valve

This type of check valve was used on GM vehicles- GM still has these for sale- the OE design is much better quality than any aftermarket I have ever seen. Two different sizes- 5/8 & 3/4 hose sizes- same thread size. I can get GM part# if anyone is interested.
 
I have read and heard all about the coking up of the breather line when plumbed into the exhaust and I still have the system in use.


Those of you who have these systems installed: what do you consider to be an appropriate inspection interval? It would be interesting to see if some data could be generated by operators here doing periodic inspections and looking for signs of coke buildup and try to correlate information about:

1 what are the signs of the incipient stage of this failure
2 how does the failure progress in terms of rate of coke buildup?
3 what operating parameters may correspond to development of this failure?
4 are there any external cues or systems monitoring that could be done to warn of the failure at the incipient stages or, failing that, in an advanced stage before failure?

Has the mechanism for coke formation in this tube been determined? Is it rapid, or a situation that develops over time? My impression, having read about the issue a little bit, is that the initiating event in the failure chain is possibly a failure of the check valve, which allows hot exhaust to blow back into the breather tube, eventually reaching the coking temperature range for engine oil that is condensing or otherwise reaching the breather discharge. Is this correct?

Given that the check valves seem to be original automotive equipment, and have long service lives in those applications, what is different about aviation applications that contributes to these failures? Exhaust temperature? Pressure? Oil viscosity? Oil condensation teperature? Oil coking temperature or qualities?

Sorry for a possibly rambling post, but this situation seems like a great application for some organized root cause analysis.
 
Here seems to be another purchaser of the Anti-Splat product that did not get any notification from the manufacturer, in spite of claims to the contrary.

Now that would truly be old news.

Those of you who have these systems installed: what do you consider to be an appropriate inspection interval?

25 hours, with a relief valve installed.

It would be interesting to see if some data could be generated by operators....

Ongoing. And plenty of reports in this forum.

Is it rapid, or a situation that develops over time?

Most rapid seems to be muffled RV-10's, with some blockages reported in as little as ~30 hours.

My impression, having read about the issue a little bit, is that the initiating event in the failure chain is possibly a failure of the check valve, which allows hot exhaust to blow back into the breather tube, eventually reaching the coking temperature range for engine oil that is condensing or otherwise reaching the breather discharge. Is this correct?

No, although the POS kit-supplied valve (photo, first post)) appears to have a high failure rate.

Sorry for a possibly rambling post, but this situation seems like a great application for some organized root cause analysis.

You bet...go ahead and try organizing them ;)
 
You're not the first to have a problem with this setup... and unfortunately you probably won't be the last!

With a fresh OH you should have a nice tight engine, my suggestion for what its worth is remove it and live with a little oil on the belly :D


^^^^^^+1

I think a little oil on the belly and elbow grease far out weighs the alternative (at least for me).
 
Another Important Take-Away

First, excellent job by the pilot handling the situation. His reaction was spot-on. What I really like is that he didn't hesitate in declaring an emergency!
I'll bet he didn't even have to file a report.

Far too many pilots hesitate here and would rather stare at the gages for a few minutes and then (maybe) call the tower and advise returning. Unless tower or ATC asks if you have a problem, you could end up being vectored, asked to extend down wind, etc. Just saying EMERGENCY or MAYDAY will get you priority, lots of attention, and will also likely absolve you of sins such as landing on the wrong runway, grass, or even a taxiway.

Great lesson here. DON'T HESITATE TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

Terry, CFI (Emergency/Mayday callout 3 times in 44 years - no reports required)
RV9A N323TP
 
I don't get it.

I am truly at a loss why ANY of you still have these things installed. You are jeopardizing your airplane, your life, and the lives of those who ride with you. Yes, we managed to put the RV-10's in the bucket of "it only appears to be RV-10's". The reality is that the RV-10's that experienced it were probably due to the sheer amount of hours being flown, with repeatable failures.
For those of you who continue to leave them installed, it should be preflighted before every flight. Yes, that's exactly what I mean: pull the cowl, pull the hose, and physically inspect it. All it takes is one flight different than the last 30 to plug it and cause a catastrophic failure. It could be something as simple as a short flight in the pattern on a cold day that puts a lot more moisture than usual in the crankcase, or a pair of piston rings that momentarily align causing elevating crankcase pressures. This will cause more blow-by and add to the clogging of the device.

Why is this continuing????

I hope someday to understand why this same group spends so much time trying to eliminate risks in other areas, such as dual electrical systems, dual ignition systems, dual EFIS, etc., and won't eleiminate something that has been proven to be a high risk item. It is beyond my comprehension.

Vic
 
Last edited:
Alan, where are you on this? Why are there so many of us who haven't received any notice from you on this issue? Has anybody received one?

I still have the system installed and believe me I'm catching flack from my more intelligent friends, but my cowl is off often and I check for coking a lot...which in my system hasn't been a problem. My valve is installed closer to the cylinder and its heat than most...perhaps that helps. Also tossed the valve Alan supplied and replaced with Napa 2-29000. As soon as I'm done with a couple of projects I'm going to do some flight testing with and without the vacuum system....to see what it's really doing for me.

Yes Vic, I know...I know. This tech is well proven in other engine systems so I am experimenting with it in this one. Experimenting...that means constant vigilance and constant checks until I am confident longer periods can be attempted. Alan has been woefully lax in telling people this system is not fully tested, not fully understood and that he is experimenting on us. Luckily, I read in here a little more often than I should so I am aware of the issues. Still...I'm not at all certain it is worth the risk or bother.

Great job on the videos David and well done getting back home safe. If you need any extra hands in reassembly, just ask.
 
Last edited:
I am truly at a loss why ANY of you still have these things installed.

Some of us have installed a second reed valve.

As you pointed out, I notice coking deposits in as little as 25 hours and 50 hours is leaving about half the opening closed up.
 
It is experimental

Alan, where are you on this? Why are there so many of us who haven't received any notice from you on this issue? Has anybody received one?

I am not defending Alan's position but these are experimental aircraft and you don't have to add an air/oil separator if you don't want to.
Expecting a notice about everything that can wrong is a certified aircraft mentality and among other things is what set us apart from the spam cans.

Although I do agree that it would be nice to be informed of such potential problems with a critical engine component, you cannot expect to buy components for an experimental price and expect certified follow up treatment.

We must absolutely blame someone for everything in our case it is US
 
Caveat Emptor!!!

I am not defending Alan's position but these are experimental aircraft and you don't have to add an air/oil separator if you don't want to.
Expecting a notice about everything that can wrong is a certified aircraft mentality and among other things is what set us apart from the spam cans.

Although I do agree that it would be nice to be informed of such potential problems with a critical engine component, you cannot expect to buy components for an experimental price and expect certified follow up treatment.

We must absolutely blame someone for everything in our case it is US
Finally, someone gets it. When you participate in EAB aviation you have the RESPONSIBILITY to understand the spectrum of operating conditions and consequences of failure when installing non-standard devices. What if... If this new experimental gadget breaks, overpressures, overtemps, etc. - do I die?

Further, if you're going to monkey around with the crankcase ventilation, you need to have a seal restraint plate on the front of your case (if it will accept one). I doubt that the OP had one, nor did most who've lost their nose seal in a similar manner. I do.

We are seeing the effects of having non experimenters flooding the EAB world. They have inadequate understanding of the systems and components they are installing, yet expecting certified airplane warranty, notifications, SBs, etc, etc. They see someone fly by in a pretty RV-x, and they want to get one. But they couldn't even tell you how many bolts are in a connecting rod. To those people, accept your ignorance and learn deeply. Overhaul an engine, read an A&P knowledge prep book, go to a small airport and make friends with the old A&P working on planes there. Learn some physics and chemistry. Or please, go buy a Cessna or Piper.
 
Last edited:
valve

Just wondering if valve or different kind of valve could be mounted about two feet upstream of exhaust so that it ran cool and still pulled vacuum and oil would not coke away from heat?
Bob
 
I am not defending Alan's position but these are experimental aircraft and you don't have to add an air/oil separator if you don't want to.
Expecting a notice about everything that can wrong is a certified aircraft mentality and among other things is what set us apart from the spam cans.

Although I do agree that it would be nice to be informed of such potential problems with a critical engine component, you cannot expect to buy components for an experimental price and expect certified follow up treatment.

We must absolutely blame someone for everything in our case it is US

You're kidding, right?

Are you seriously advocating that an aircraft part manufacturer has less responsibility to his customers if they are selling to the experimental market?

Are you seriously suggesting that a manufacturer of a "critical engine component" (your words) should not notify their customers of a potential failure of their product?

We chose to build and fly experimental aircraft. That does NOT mean that we necessarily chose to take extra risks in doing so, especially when building such a well-designed and documented aircraft such as the RV.

IF this part is faulty--and anecdotal evidence indicates there are failure modes--then the manufacturer absolutely owes his customers some sort of notice, be it a mailing or email, or even a press release.

That is not too much to ask.

We all have the responsibility to build and fly as safely as possible, despite the fact that we are not working with a conventionally"certified" aircraft. That does not mean that we are willing to accept a lesser degree of safety....indeed, we need to do better than that.
 
Last edited:
I am not defending Alan's position but these are experimental aircraft and you don't have to add an air/oil separator if you don't want to.
Expecting a notice about everything that can wrong is a certified aircraft mentality and among other things is what set us apart from the spam cans.

Not supporting or defending anyone, just a general thought.
On the "notice" expectation- I wonder what company keeps detail records of every purchaser of a specific product? Even in the certified world, there are a lot of companies that don't have the ability to determine that they sold X part number to Y customers. While we expect companies with more sophisticated databases to be able to do this, smaller companies might not be able to. My company sells certified parts through distributors and we do not know who the owner of the aircraft the parts are on is. Given these are "experimental" aircraft and the parts are commercial parts it is understandable that there may not be traceability and a lot of folks might not have been directly notified.

That's what is great about this forum. It is a awesome place for information exchange. :)
 
You're kidding, right?

Are you seriously advocating that an aircraft part manufacturer has less responsibility to his customers if they are selling to the experimental market?

Are you seriously suggesting that a manufacturer of a "critical engine component" (your words) should not notify their customers of a potential failure of their product?

We chose to build and fly experimental aircraft. That does NOT mean that we necessarily chose to take extra risks in doing so, especially when building such a well-designed and documented aircraft such as the RV.

IF this part is faulty--and anecdotal evidence indicates there are failure modes--then the manufacturer absolutely owes his customers some sort of notice, be it a mailing or email, or even a press release.

That is not too much to ask.

We all have the responsibility to build and fly as safely as possible, despite the fact that we are not working with a conventionally"certified" aircraft. That does not mean that we are willing to accept a lesser degree of safety....indeed, we need to do better than that.
I would submit that anyone with this mindset needs to go to the production airplane world. In the EAB world, the buyer/installer carries all the risk. Otherwise, we're headed toward the certified world with the low technology, lawyers, and costs associated.

How can I state this more bluntly. Anyone who installs a vent from their crank case into a 1400 degree F gas stream is going to have to understand that coking is a potential problem. And when the vent is blocked and the crankcase cannot vent, catastrophic things can happen. Anyone not knowing this needs to not be participating in EAB. Or at least not without someone knowing what they're doing overseeing the installation of mods, and assuring that the operator and maintainer know how to deal with the new failure mode.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to hear of your misfortune but great job flying the airplane.

I have read and heard all about the coking up of the breather line when plumbed into the exhaust and I still have the system in use.
After reading about the first incident of a blown crankshaft seal I now am seriously considering removing the whole Antisplat Air/Oil gizmo.

To the OP:
Was your reed valve supplied by Antisplat?

Glad you are ok.

Yes. The vacuum valve (reed valve) was from antisplat.
 
First, excellent job by the pilot handling the situation. His reaction was spot-on. What I really like is that he didn't hesitate in declaring an emergency!
I'll bet he didn't even have to file a report.

Far too many pilots hesitate here and would rather stare at the gages for a few minutes and then (maybe) call the tower and advise returning. Unless tower or ATC asks if you have a problem, you could end up being vectored, asked to extend down wind, etc. Just saying EMERGENCY or MAYDAY will get you priority, lots of attention, and will also likely absolve you of sins such as landing on the wrong runway, grass, or even a taxiway.

Great lesson here. DON'T HESITATE TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

Terry, CFI (Emergency/Mayday callout 3 times in 44 years - no reports required)
RV9A N323TP

No report required, just a couple of question from the airport and they drove to me. The tower did a great job of clearing the airport, rolling the fire trucks, then just leaving me alone to concentrate on flying.
 
On the "notice" expectation- I wonder what company keeps detail records of every purchaser of a specific product? Even in the certified world, there are a lot of companies that don't have the ability to determine that they sold X part number to Y customers. While we expect companies with more sophisticated databases to be able to do this, smaller companies might not be able to. My company sells certified parts through distributors and we do not know who the owner of the aircraft the parts are on is. Given these are "experimental" aircraft and the parts are commercial parts it is understandable that there may not be traceability and a lot of folks might not have been directly notified.

OMG, it's 2015...this is what computers are FOR. Even the most rudimentary business no doubt uses at least a modest laptop to keep track of income and expenses.

It's not difficult to keep track of to whom you sold what parts...and these are *powerplant* accessories, all the more reason to do a better job.

It's one of the areas of the entire E-AB milieu that needs serious improvement by people making and selling components...and there are a quite a few of these less-than-responsive (or responsible) companies around.

Join the 20th century...get a computer, use a database, and be responsible to your customers.
 
Very Happy David got down safely! Good job. Sorry you missed the big discussion here on VAF about this very thing. David, do you have any suggestions as to getting the word out?

Moderator: Wouldn't this SECOND alert (seal blow out) reach more people in "Safety" - with a modified title for all to read?

I don't have any suggestions. After flying my plane for 8 years l became complacent about following your forum and was not aware of problems with the device. My bad. I posted to let others know of the potential problems and to let every one know that a crank seal failure does not necessarily manifest itself with oil on the windscreen.
 
Our Service Bullitin

SERVICE BULLETIN 000-1
.
Date Effective October 30, 2014 / Revised January 2, 2014
.
Subject Vacuum saddle mount evacuation system
.
maintenance and modification
Required Action 1. Cleaning and inspection of bias draw tube into exhaust.
2. Installation of the safety by-pass kit on all vacuum systems.
.
Time of Compliance Before further flight, and at each subsequent oil change
.
Level of Certification Aircraft owner and service personnel
.
... Two potential problems have been brought to our attention with three recent incidents resulting in two forced landings. One RV-8 due to a clogged, coked breather and an RV-7 due to a failed vacuum valve that partially blocked off the breather. These occurrences and one other on an RV-10 that had a front seal blow out are the only ones we were made aware of and are cause for concern (even one is too many). The models displaying serious coking potential have been the 10s and we suspended sales of the evacuation system to the 10s until we can be assured the problem no longer exists. We must add that several RV-10s have the system installed and are having no issues whatsoever. We are currently trying to sort out why, and what is different. When a good working solution is found we will make it available to all via our website and the forums. We addressed this at length on the forums as a safety precaution (it appears many were unaware and failed to receive this information). A.S.A. markets this product too many different experimental models and applications. We strongly advise everyone, with all aircraft models to inspect the tube where it protrudes into the exhaust immediately, and at every oil change to be certain it is open and free of any serious clogging. Many owners have carried out this inspection to find a small amount of coking, 1/16" or so on the inside periphery is normal. This is not an issue and usually will not build further. We have also changed the design of the saddle mount clamp on to further help eliminate the potential problem. When we complete the testing program on this change we will report our results and make these available. We advise inspection at every oil change and if any significant build-up is detected, to inspect more often than that. If significant build-up is detected, then for safety a second valve to vent off crankcase pressure should be installed. We have the parts for this in stock should you need them. In light of recent developments, and being now aware of possible valve failures as well, we will be shipping the future systems complete with two valves and necessary hardware to install this bypass. We also have a retrofit kit available at a very reasonable cost to add this safety feature to existing installations, and strongly advise against further flight until this feature is added. These forced landings would not have happened if this bypass were installed. It appears that everyone using this product needs to be adequately informed as to the maintenance of the system. Appropriate entries into log books, check lists and service documents should be made in an effort to eliminate any confusion for a future owner as well.
.
Moderators; Please post this as a sticky in an appropriate area. Thanks, Allan
 
Last edited:
I would submit that anyone with this mindset needs to go to the production airplane world. In the EAB world, the buyer/installer carries all the risk. Otherwise, we're headed toward the certified world with the low technology, lawyers, and costs associated.

Let's see how quickly lawyers get involved after a fatal accident or two which can be traced to a part or accessory sold by a vendor...you think the "Experimental" label will do anything to stave off the suits against the vendor, his supply chain, etc.? Hardly. Add to that a vendor who is aware of an issue and doesn't notify their customers? AHAHAHA...any good lawyer will have a field day with that.

How can I state this more bluntly. Anyone who installs a vent from their crank case into a 1400 degree F gas stream is going to have to understand that coking is a potential problem.

I would also posit that anyone *designing and selling* such a system should understand it, and advise potential customers (and current ones, if a problem is identified later).

And when the vent is blocked and the crankcase cannot vent, catastrophic things can happen. Anyone not knowing this needs to not be participating in EAB. Or at least not without someone knowing what they're doing overseeing the installation of mods, and assuring that the operator and maintainer know how to deal with the new failure mode.

Yes, unless you know every detail of every part of every component on your aircraft, you should get out of EAB.

Seriously?
 
When you buy an experimental part, you become part of the experiment.
If you wish to lessen your risk, buy proven products, from proven suppliers.

That was a big consideration for most of us before we bought a kit from Van's.
 
When you buy an experimental part, you become part of the experiment.
If you wish to lessen your risk, buy proven products, from proven suppliers.

That was a big consideration for most of us before we bought a kit from Van's.

Emphasis added - Absolutely!!

Three years of study before my selection. Accident data, VAF, and all other sources that could be found. I AM part of the experiment and therefore choose what part is experimental very carefully. Even then, I still study and learn more .
 
One of the reasons I monitor this site is so I am informed about issues related to the operation of the Van's kit airplane I bought and built and all the related components. I don't have an air/oil separator of any kind on my aircraft, but I have still been monitoring the issues on this forum from the beginning. When Van's has a service bulletin, they never contact me to tell me about it. I find out about it from this forum or from Van's web site. Same with the engine manufacturer, EFIS manufacturer, fuel injection manufacturer, etc. If you are not keeping up with these sort of issues and service bulletins, maybe you should be flying a Cessna/Piper and not an experimental. But come to think of it, no manufacturer from the certificated world ever contacted me about a service bulletin either.
 
When you buy an experimental part, you become part of the experiment.
If you wish to lessen your risk, buy proven products, from proven suppliers.

That was a big consideration for most of us before we bought a kit from Van's.

BTW, my disappointment in customer service re: notifications of issues *extends to Van's Aircraft*...no email or snailmail notification of SBs? They expect people to monitor their website (or this forum) to figure out if a new SB has been issued?

Granted they aren't going to have info on owners of planes that have been sold, but once again...this is what computers are for. Create a database of aircraft kits sold (which they already have) to whom (which they know), and then use that. Set up a way for sales/transfers to be input to update the database.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be better than relying on word of mouth to keep, say, a horizontal stabilizer from falling off due to cracks in a spar.
 
Yes, unless you know every detail of every part of every component on your aircraft, you should get out of EAB.

Seriously?

I think there is a middle ground - if you're involved in EAB, you have the freedom to make changes along with the responsibility to understand the ramifications of any changes you make.

For example, some vendors have would sell you parts which claim to fix/strengthen part of the structure but in fact have a detrimental effect on fatigue life elsewhere. They don't understand that, but after evaluation their product I do and I chose not to install it.

It's not a black-and-white issue.
 
While not flying my build yet, I tend to agree with those that this is experimental aviation and some risks come along with that choice. It is unreasonable for a vendor to keep track of each part sold. It's what helps keep costs down for builders like us and is a major draw for me personally to EAB. Take an Auto Zone or NAPA. Say their shock absorber fails on my car and I crash. The MFR doesn't know that I bought it. Neither does NAPA. They can make an honest effort to get the information out, but can't keep track of all the changing of hands.

Being a true PIC comes to mind in these circumstances. This pilot did a great job being PIC in the air, but may learn from this as EAB PIC on the ground (and so can the rest of us, fortunately). I feel that as EAB PIC's, we take on an additional responsibility for making sure the aircraft and all components are flight worthy which means that we may have to research/learn/investigate/inspect where our certified brothers and sisters may not.
 
While not flying my build yet, I tend to agree with those that this is experimental aviation and some risks come along with that choice. It is unreasonable for a vendor to keep track of each part sold.

Absolutely...there are risks in *all* activities, and all aviation activities in particular. We certainly accept them with EABs, and try to mitigate them as much as possible.

I think it depends on the vendor and the product, to be honest. Some non-flight-essential part or a minor flaw or issue, sure. Not worried about that, and wouldn't expect them to go to any major effort to notify customers.

Something related to safety of flight? Absolutely I expect more than just an update on a sub-page on a website somewhere (and the rumor mill) to inform people.

E.g., Dynon had a problem with its pitot tube. When the problem was fixed, I got an email offering the exchange for the new part. Swap made, new one installed. How hard was that for them to do? Probably nothing more than a few clicks to essentially do an email to their entire customer base. Well done.

And I do think that a fatality traced to a vendor's *known* part failure or problem, regardless of EAB status, will likely result in a nice big lawsuit for said vendor. Hiding behind "but's it's *experimental*" won't hold much sway with a jury. Just look at the rest of GA when it comes to lawsuits to see what can happen...
 
I feel that as EAB PIC's, we take on an additional responsibility for making sure the aircraft and all components are flight worthy which means that we may have to research/learn/investigate/inspect where our certified brothers and sisters may not.

PIC is PIC, EAB or not:

?91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight.
 
When Van's has a service bulletin, they never contact me to tell me about it. I find out about it from this forum or from Van's web site.

Van's doesn't normally directly contact builders /owners for anything other than problems that are considered an immediate safety of flight issue.

If you have never received any communication it would be because of two possible reasons

- you have not notified Van's that you are the owner of your specific airplane

or

- there has not been any safety of flight issue on the model that you have.



We have been following this issue since it first surfaced.

I personally have been waiting for someone new to take advantage of the situation and start a new company called "ANTI BLOW AERO" :rolleyes:
 
BTW, my disappointment in customer service re: notifications of issues *extends to Van's Aircraft*...no email or snailmail notification of SBs? They expect people to monitor their website (or this forum) to figure out if a new SB has been issued?

Granted they aren't going to have info on owners of planes that have been sold, but once again...this is what computers are for. Create a database of aircraft kits sold (which they already have) to whom (which they know), and then use that. Set up a way for sales/transfers to be input to update the database.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be better than relying on word of mouth to keep, say, a horizontal stabilizer from falling off due to cracks in a spar.


This is easy to describe but much more difficult to put into practice than you might think.
Anything issued by Van's or any other aircraft company (certified or otherwise) as a Service Bulletin is not considered to be an immediate safety of flight issue.
It is the responsibility of anyone doing an annual or a condition inspection to research any publications that have been issued against the aircraft.

That is one of the main reasons THIS page of the Van's web site exists.
 
Flames?

On a lighter note, it seems top me the OP was asking for this problem, given the flame paint job and all. Remember the guy who had a lightning bolt painted on his tail, and then had a lightning strike on his tail??? Just sayin':D
 
On a lighter note, it seems top me the OP was asking for this problem, given the flame paint job and all. Remember the guy who had a lightning bolt painted on his tail, and then had a lightning strike on his tail??? Just sayin':D

That does it...my paint scheme will incorporate about 100 hot air balloons. She'll float like a butterfly! :D:D
 
PITTS aircraft has breather problems too

http://aviataircraft.com/pix/pbulletins/sb19.pdf


Seems below freezing the breather tube would close up.

PS: my valve is within 7" of the end of the exhaust pipe and have found no coking in the last 130 hours of operation.

Maybe if the saddle is to high the higher heat is causing the build up?
 
Anything issued by Van's or any other aircraft company (certified or otherwise) as a Service Bulletin is not considered to be an immediate safety of flight issue.

I don't know about anyone else, but I might consider a blown crankshaft nose seal and subsequent loss of all the oil in my engine a safety of flight issue.

But maybe that's just me. :)
 
Let's see how quickly lawyers get involved after a fatal accident or two which can be traced to a part or accessory sold by a vendor...you think the "Experimental" label will do anything to stave off the suits against the vendor, his supply chain, etc.? Hardly. Add to that a vendor who is aware of an issue and doesn't notify their customers? AHAHAHA...any good lawyer will have a field day with that.

If our EAB world is morphed into the same type of system that certified planes exist, then, yes. You'll see the ludicrous, INSANE lawsuits against the suppliers and the resultant archaic technology and high prices. That what you want? I am hearing this tone from those who want zero risk products and AD, SB, TSO, PMA, FAA, etc. accountability. I absolutely do not. What we have works very well for what it is.

Yes, unless you know every detail of every part of every component on your aircraft, you should get out of EAB.

Seriously?
Please reread my comment. I said anyone making modifications to critical systems and not knowing the ramifications should get out of EAB. Yes, I said that and stick by it 100%.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about anyone else, but I might consider a blown crankshaft nose seal and subsequent loss of all the oil in my engine a safety of flight issue.

But maybe that's just me. :)

I'm not sure of your point here. Van's isn't the vendor for the system in question and doesn't endorse it's use. The manufacturer does not acknowledge the gravity of the issue. What we have is a difference of opinion regarding the safety of an aftermarket add-on. As others have stated, if owners are going to make modifications to the design, they also must take responsibility for the safety of such changes. IMHO, there are a number of snake-oil products out there, we have to be savvy enough to avoid them, or buy a Cessna.
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I might consider a blown crankshaft nose seal and subsequent loss of all the oil in my engine a safety of flight issue.

But maybe that's just me. :)

I totally agree with you.

But hopefully you don't expect Van's to issue a safety of flight notification for a device they did not design, they do not sell, and they do not recommend installing?
 
Back
Top