Accepting New QB Deposit Terms/Prices and LCPs

[BBlastos]

Anybody out there in VansLand have insight on how QB kits are being addressed in regards to the LCP and corrosion issues? Many builders may not accept a QB kit with LCPs. Is Vans allowing transition to a slow build kit, albiet at the higher price and/or a different spot in line? Or is it take it or leave it by 15Jan?

I had a QB -10 Fuse scheduled for delivery this fall/winter and have had zero communication from Vans regarding it's status. The path forward in regards to new kit orders is fairly clear. Buyers with kits affected by LCPs and corrosion are still in the dark.

Any insight/opinions? Thx.

B. Blastos

 

[pfitzuscg]

Anybody out there in VansLand have insight on how QB kits are being addressed in regards to the LCP and corrosion issues? Many builders may not accept a QB kit with LCPs. Is Vans allowing transition to a slow build kit, albiet at the higher price and/or a different spot in line? Or is it take it or leave it by 15Jan?

I had a QB -10 Fuse scheduled for delivery this fall/winter and have had zero communication from Vans regarding it's status. The path forward in regards to new kit orders is fairly clear. Buyers with kits affected by LCPs and corrosion are still in the dark.

Any insight/opinions? Thx.

B. Blastos

I wish I had further insight, but in similar situation. Had an RV-8 QB that arrived at the warehouse in July just as the LCP issue went public. Received an email from Van's that that basically said there was a LCP issue and further information would be forthcoming. At the Van's Oshkosh presentation, they said QB kits could be converted to a SB kit if builder desired. Now with the bankruptcy I'm not sure what options will be presented to those with kits on order.

 

[JonJay]

Be patient and wait for the “Plan” to be approved by the court. Hopefully, everyone’s questions will have an answer. That’s the best we’re going to get right now I’m afraid.
Ed just posted an AOPA YouTube video that does a nice job explaining the sequence of events and dates. All, subject to change as these reorganizations can take many turns.

 

[Kolg]

My QB wings were delivered about a year ago, and then last summer I received Van's message "your QB may have LCPs". Like many, I've received no updated info on whether I have LCP or not.

Based on AOPA's video. I'm wondering if I should file a claim with BMC before Feb. Planning to pose that question to AOPA PPS on Monday.

 

[pfactor]

Non internet savy /first time builder/ 70+ yr old friend had his 14 Emp, qb fuse and wings just delivered, then got email about lcps , then nothing... Called and called before ch11, response..wait or no response..... Then .. ch11 called and called and nobody knows anything , he's p$$%#@$d aka not real happy at the lack of response..

 

[spatsch]

Looking at the court filing on the 15th all recent customers have been mailed a physical letter stating that all claims have to be filed by 2/12. The letter in particular lists LCP liabilities as one of the reasons to file a claim.

I am not a lawyer but AOPA legal plan covers consultations on this… . You don’t want to miss any deadlines or file the wrong thing at the wrong time… .

Oliver

 

[lyosha]

Most likely outcome is whatever you have is what you have.

QB kits are likely the single largest liability for Vans (engine order deposits strong competition). It is likely a huge chunk of the "inventory" they are "flush" or "rich" with that they need to unload.

That said, I don't see a world in which they can actually do anything.

The "Vans will make it right" Vans is bankrupt and does not have the resources to address the multitude of issues it is facing. We now have the "trying to survive" Vans, and that state will likely last longer than any of our builds. Hopefully the old Vans is back, but the past six months have for sure been the time to hedge your bets.

 

[Jonnyb]

Most likely outcome is whatever you have is what you have.

QB kits are likely the single largest liability for Vans (engine order deposits strong competition). It is likely a huge chunk of the "inventory" they are "flush" or "rich" with that they need to unload.

That said, I don't see a world in which they can actually do anything.

The "Vans will make it right" Vans is bankrupt and does not have the resources to address the multitude of issues it is facing. We now have the "trying to survive" Vans, and that state will likely last longer than any of our builds. Hopefully the old Vans is back, but the past six months have for sure been the time to hedge your bets.

So are we now saying Vans will not be rectifying the LCP issue and builders have to file a claim with the court?

Fortunately I don’t really have a horse in this one as I only have a couple of parts left that are LCP. But if that’s true thats really going to sting some builders.

 

[lyosha]

So are we now saying Vans will not be rectifying the LCP issue and builders have to file a claim with the court?

Fortunately I don’t really have a horse in this one as I only have a couple of parts left that are LCP. But if that’s true thats really going to sting some builders.

I am lucky enough to not currently be in possession of LCP parts. But f I had any I would expect Vans wouldn’t send me replacements. Vans is bankrupt.

All their moves for the past six months are textbook dumping of liability, culminating in a bankruptcy where they legally become no longer liable for the outcomes of LCP planes.

I think having a company around to order non LCP replacements for twice the price is the best we can reasonably hope for, and any additional help should be viewed as a stroke of pure luck.

 

[garyg1]

why am I getting the feeling there really isn't a plan to replace LCP parts? I just got a letter and it says Chapter 11 and all liabilities. I think the plan is to wash their hands. or am I reading this all wrong?

 

[Jonnyb]

Note: Some of you have already taken delivery of a kit
containing laser-cut parts, Van's will be contacting you shortly with details on our plan for getting you replacement parts. We will begin shipping replacement parts at the end of this month, and we project that all customers needing replacement parts will receive them prior to the end of 2024.

This note was taken from another website. Apparently it’s on the Vans website where you can accept the price rises for your kit. If anyone can confirm that?
But let’s hope it means they aren’t planning on leaving this issue to the courts.

 

[Cholley6]

Yes that wording exists in the website Van's sends for you to choose the new contract or reject. It also says that when able they plan to ship replacement parts with your next kit, but I think they said mostly emp/tail kits first. Not sure how it works for us with mostly LCP wing parts and a Fuse on order.

The site also lists inventory of ready to ship kits, not sure how often that will be updated.

 

[MIKE JG]

I believe there is a plan in place to address LCP's for both QB customers and those like me that just need the new parts.

What that plan is and how it will be implemented is now apparently at the discretion of the court. I think there is a very real possibility that the judge says too bad so sad and rejects any plan to "make it right" with the customers. After all the judge's #1 priority is to ensure the survival of the company and secure the jobs of its employees. The customers come last and often lose. As someone said upstream, this is Van's in survival mode, not the Van's Aircraft we previously knew. Things will be different, they have no choice.

So.... I think some of the replacement parts have already been produced based on their limited comms so far, think red parts and empennage spars (critical parts). I get the feeling the production priority is red, yellow then green and blue. And then how they plan to get those parts to those customers is still TBD.

How they are going to fix all of the QB kits that need to be fixed is the real question. If they offered a LCP QB kit at a significant discount and mandated that you had to come pick it up, maybe they sell off a few that way? I'm not sure. Otherwise I think you're looking at several years to fix all the QB kits in house. I also don't believe the 5M they have set aside is enough to cover the cost to fix the issue completely.

 

[GrahamF]

I also don't believe the 5M they have set aside is enough to cover the cost to fix the issue completely.

It definitely isn't.

When the extent of the LCP issue (how long it had been going on, lack of any traceability, QBs affected too) became clear back in the summer, those of us with an eye on the bigger picture did some napkin math and quickly concluded:

1. Fixing it without leaving customers out of pocket would be a $10m+ exercise.
2. Unless Van's has for some reason retained significant cash reserves, the issue will bankrupt the company.

None of this is rocket science and none of what has happened since the summer is unexpected. The only slight surprise to me has been quite how long it took to get to the Chapter 11 filing, but I suppose time was needed to put the plan together (this is a pre-pack in all but name) and holding out for as long as possible was in Van's interest because it allowed more cash to be collected and more customers to become exposed and committed for even greater amounts, thus increasing the amount Van's would be able to save in bankruptcy.

 

[BLR Aeroworks]

Inquiry sent to BMC Group

We are building an RV-8 and have taken delivery of a QB fuselage, QB wings, and empennage kit. We have completed fabrication of the empennage kit, and have started work on the wing. All of the kits we have received are compromised by laser-cut parts. At this point, no communication has been received on how Van's intends to address builders who are in possession of kits compromised by laser-cut parts. We are uncertain how to proceed with regard to the Notice of Bankruptcy that has been received. Thoughts?

I sent the following inquiry this morning to the BMC Group, the Debtor's Noticing and Claims Agent handling Van's bankruptcy petition:

We have paid for, and are in receipt of an RV-8 QB fuselage in which laser-cut parts are embedded within the fabricated structure. These parts are deemed "Replacement recommended: Primary Structure, susceptible to fatigue damage with high stress and high numbers of loading cycles, or in a location of where if a part were to fail there is an insufficient level of redundancy." We have completed fabrication of an empennage kit that is similarly compromised by laser-cut parts. We have ailerons and flaps that are also compromised. How will these deficiencies be addressed? Will Van's be providing monetary compensation for having not delivered a QB fuselage kit, empennage kit or ailerons and flaps free of defects? Will Van's be providing and shipping a new QB fuselage kit, empennage kit, ailerons and flaps at their own cost? Will Van's be correcting the deficiencies at their own cost? Or is it Van's intention to provide no remediation or compensation of any sort to builders who are currently in possession of kits and sub-assemblies compromised by laser-cut parts? In short, when will a plan be provided, and what will the plan detail, for how Van's will adjudicate kits which have been delivered and are structurally compromised by laser-cut parts? Please understand that these questions are wholly salient and germane to our continued relationship with Van's Aircraft. They require an immediate response in order for us to make a fully-informed decision on how to proceed with regard to the Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy which was received yesterday, December 19, 2023.

 

[spatsch]

We are building an RV-8 and have taken delivery of a QB fuselage, QB wings, and empennage kit. We have completed fabrication of the empennage kit, and have started work on the wing. All of the kits we have received are compromised by laser-cut parts. At this point, no communication has been received on how Van's intends to address builders who are in possession of kits compromised by laser-cut parts. We are uncertain how to proceed with regard to the Notice of Bankruptcy that has been received. Thoughts?

I sent the following inquiry this morning to the BMC Group, the Debtor's Noticing and Claims Agent handling Van's bankruptcy petition:

We have paid for, and are in receipt of an RV-8 QB fuselage in which laser-cut parts are embedded within the fabricated structure. These parts are deemed "Replacement recommended: Primary Structure, susceptible to fatigue damage with high stress and high numbers of loading cycles, or in a location of where if a part were to fail there is an insufficient level of redundancy." We have completed fabrication of an empennage kit that is similarly compromised by laser-cut parts. We have ailerons and flaps that are also compromised. How will these deficiencies be addressed? Will Van's be providing monetary compensation for having not delivered a QB fuselage kit, empennage kit or ailerons and flaps free of defects? Will Van's be providing and shipping a new QB fuselage kit, empennage kit, ailerons and flaps at their own cost? Will Van's be correcting the deficiencies at their own cost? Or is it Van's intention to provide no remediation or compensation of any sort to builders who are currently in possession of kits and sub-assemblies compromised by laser-cut parts? In short, when will a plan be provided, and what will the plan detail, for how Van's will adjudicate kits which have been delivered and are structurally compromised by laser-cut parts? Please understand that these questions are wholly salient and germane to our continued relationship with Van's Aircraft. They require an immediate response in order for us to make a fully-informed decision on how to proceed with regard to the Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy which was received yesterday, December 19, 2023.

As I get your questions. I don't understand why you send it to BMC. They are just a processor. They handle posting and mailing paperwork as requested by the Court and Vans.

The key players are listed on the BMC website and are:

Office of the United States Trustee STEPHEN P ARNOT US Trustee [email protected] Portland
Kenneth S. Eiler Subchapter V Trustee [email protected] Portland
Tonkon Torp LLP AVA L SCHOEN Debtor Counsel [email protected] Portland
Tonkon Torp LLP TIMOTHY J CONWAY Debtor Counsel [email protected] Portland
Clyde A. Hamstreet & Associates, LLC Clyde A. Hamstreet Proposed Chief Restructuring Officer [email protected] Portland

Not saying they would give you an answer either but at least they are not just the paper admin.

Oliver

 

[keitht]

FAA Kit Approval

It definitely isn't.

When the extent of the LCP issue (how long it had been going on, lack of any traceability, QBs affected too) became clear back in the summer, those of us with an eye on the bigger picture did some napkin math and quickly concluded:

1. Fixing it without leaving customers out of pocket would be a $10m+ exercise.
2. Unless Van's has for some reason retained significant cash reserves, the issue will bankrupt the company.

None of this is rocket science and none of what has happened since the summer is unexpected. The only slight surprise to me has been quite how long it took to get to the Chapter 11 filing, but I suppose time was needed to put the plan together (this is a pre-pack in all but name) and holding out for as long as possible was in Van's interest because it allowed more cash to be collected and more customers to become exposed and committed for even greater amounts, thus increasing the amount Van's would be able to save in bankruptcy.

I hope your $10 M exposure estimate is on the pessimistic side - I suspect not. Trying to get my head around what is happening and other areas of risk that haven’t yet been exposed that could impact recovery from bankruptcy.
I would hope that consideration has been given to directing engineering effort to head off any possibility of the FAA and other regulatory bodies from pulling the Van’s kit manufacturing approval permits and delaying issuing airworthiness certificates due to the LCP traceability and use issues. If that were to happen the game really would be over and be a dagger in the heart for those ponying up to the higher kit prices.
Keith T

 

[keitht]

The range of experience and judgment of RV builders is across the board and I am sure there are those that would and have taken the advice from Vans that the LCP parts were “fit for purpose”. Most of us wouldn’t - but some would. The issue is that Vans configuration control, parts tracking, quality control and inspection, materials and process management were all more of a standard better suited for a cottage industry than an aerospace business. Others have made the same observation on this forum and it was glaringly obvious on a number of trips I made to the mothership to buy and collect parts. Boeing learned the importance and exposure for lack of rigor and commitment in those areas back on the 747-200 program and I am sure this will be one of the top lessons learned by Vans from this experience. I would be very surprised if the FAA,CAA etc are not paying close attention to the events unfolding here and making sure they are not sharing in any exposure.

KeithT

 

[MIKE JG]

It definitely isn't.

When the extent of the LCP issue (how long it had been going on, lack of any traceability, QBs affected too) became clear back in the summer, those of us with an eye on the bigger picture did some napkin math and quickly concluded:

1. Fixing it without leaving customers out of pocket would be a $10m+ exercise.

That's why I think this will take years to fix for everyone affected. Easiest will be parts replacement. That's simple enough, make new parts and ship them out. But fixing each QB kit one at a time.... Yikes.

 

[BLR Aeroworks]

As I get your questions. I don't understand why you send it to BMC. They are just a processor. They handle posting and mailing paperwork as requested by the Court and Vans.

The key players are listed on the BMC website and are:

Office of the United States Trustee STEPHEN P ARNOT US Trustee [email protected] Portland
Kenneth S. Eiler Subchapter V Trustee [email protected] Portland
Tonkon Torp LLP AVA L SCHOEN Debtor Counsel [email protected] Portland
Tonkon Torp LLP TIMOTHY J CONWAY Debtor Counsel [email protected] Portland
Clyde A. Hamstreet & Associates, LLC Clyde A. Hamstreet Proposed Chief Restructuring Officer [email protected] Portland

Not saying they would give you an answer either but at least they are not just the paper admin.

Oliver

I posted the inquiry to BMC Group since no other party has ever replied to any of my numerous email queries. The lack of communication regarding how Van's intends to handle kits that are compromised by LCPs is truly unfortunate and does not make me feel confident that our concerns will be addressed in any reasonable fashion.

 

[spatsch]

That's why I think this will take years to fix for everyone affected. Easiest will be parts replacement. That's simple enough, make new parts and ship them out. But fixing each QB kit one at a time.... Yikes.

Well in the kit plane Q&A Hamstreet seems to be proud that people get payed in 5 years. That should give you an idea ....

Oliver

 

[skylor]

...The issue is that Vans configuration control, parts tracking, quality control and inspection, materials and process management were all more of a standard better suited for a cottage industry than an aerospace business. Others have made the same observation on this forum and it was glaringly obvious on a number of trips I made to the mothership to buy and collect parts. Boeing learned the importance and exposure for lack of rigor and commitment in those areas back on the 747-200 program and I am sure this will be one of the top lessons learned by Vans from this experience. I would be very surprised if the FAA,CAA etc are not paying close attention to the events unfolding here and making sure they are not sharing in any exposure.

KeithT

If you expect Northrop or Boeing levels of process management and parts tracking, you can expect to pay Boeing or Northrop prices. These are supposed to be "kit planes" not next-gen military fighters.


Skylor

 

[keitht]

If you expect Northrop or Boeing levels of process management and parts tracking, you can expect to pay Boeing or Northrop prices. These are supposed to be "kit planes" not next-gen military fighters.


Skylor

You’re missing the point.
I’m certainly not advocating for a Boeing style level of process control - just something adequate and more than was being done.
Boeing almost went under as a consequence of lack of configuration and process control on the 747-200 development - probably would have done without the DuPont bailout.
The stats for Chapter 11 recoveries are not good - 10% of those going in make it the rest go into liquidation.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

If you expect Northrop or Boeing levels of process management and parts tracking, you can expect to pay Boeing or Northrop prices. These are supposed to be "kit planes" not next-gen military fighters.


Skylor

Even small businesses can implement adequate QA processes. Had Van's done so, the LCP problem would have either not shown up at all or been caught and fixed very early, limiting the exposure. A complete *lack* of QC is inexcusable.

Similarly, basic inventory control and tracking is readily available and would have allowed for rapid identification of affected customers instead of the massive set of potential cases that now exist.

This is basic aerospace engineering and manufacturing, not rocket science (or commercial transport aircraft industry).

 

[lipper03]

Got my email, I’ve asked three questions. I had a 14a qb fuse qb wing and finishing kit for exp119 on order. Hopefully I get a quick response, and I’ll post here.

1. Do the qb kits contain lcp?
2. Can I switch qb fuse to sb fuse?
3. Can I switch qb wing to sb wing?

 

[lipper03]

Got my email, I’ve asked three questions. I had a 14a qb fuse qb wing and finishing kit for exp119 on order. Hopefully I get a quick response, and I’ll post here.

1. Do the qb kits contain lcp?
2. Can I switch qb fuse to sb fuse?
3. Can I switch qb wing to sb wing?

In the faq it says can’t change type, ie qb to sb. I just read that.

 

[rv6ejguy]

Even small businesses can implement adequate QA processes. Had Van's done so, the LCP problem would have either not shown up at all or been caught and fixed very early, limiting the exposure. A complete *lack* of QC is inexcusable.

Similarly, basic inventory control and tracking is readily available and would have allowed for rapid identification of affected customers instead of the massive set of potential cases that now exist.

Van's ignored customer reports of LCP cracking for many months and told them to build on. They could have halted production and delivery of LCPs at that first report. Instead, they dug the hole much deeper.

Auto OEMs and other production lines have a mandate to stop as soon as a defect is detected so as not to contaminate every subsequent part/assembly on the line. Costly to stop the line but a lot more costly not to stop it as we see here.

 

[mvs163]

I hope your $10 M exposure estimate is on the pessimistic side - I suspect not. Trying to get my head around what is happening and other areas of risk that haven’t yet been exposed that could impact recovery from bankruptcy.
I would hope that consideration has been given to directing engineering effort to head off any possibility of the FAA and other regulatory bodies from pulling the Van’s kit manufacturing approval permits and delaying issuing airworthiness certificates due to the LCP traceability and use issues. If that were to happen the game really would be over and be a dagger in the heart for those ponying up to the higher kit prices.
Keith T

I'm not aware of any kit manufacturing approvals. I don't believe such an approval exists...certainly none in Canada, its buyer beware.
Mike

 

[maxmirot]

Van's ignored customer reports of LCP cracking for many months and told them to build on. They could have halted production and delivery of LCPs at that first report. Instead, they dug the hole much deeper.

Auto OEMs and other production lines have a mandate to stop as soon as a defect is detected so as not to contaminate every subsequent part/assembly on the line. Costly to stop the line but a lot more costly not to stop it as we see here.

It was not always that way. In the 1970s-1980s US automakers were challenged by Japanese automakers on quality. Detroit had a policy to never stop the line.

Most of the time a defect was either fixed as the line moved or it end up it in the parking lot as a finished vehicle. Consequently many problem never got fixed prior to sale. Japanese manufactures immediately stopped the line if any worker saw a problem. They would solve the problem as a team a then restart the line. Eventually Detroit learned this lesion from Japan and started
producing high quality vehicles.

I am doctor and serve on our local hospital board. Hospital management encourage nurses and other health care employees to "stop the line".
Another words speak up as soon some looks wrong. This a big culture change especially if a nurse if see something off on a on senor team member or physician's action. Quality goes way up once every employee feels supported to speak up.

 

[longranger]

I'm not aware of any kit manufacturing approvals. I don't believe such an approval exists...certainly none in Canada, its buyer beware.
Mike

Only whether or not they meet the 51% rule.

 

[lipper03]

Got my email, I’ve asked three questions. I had a 14a qb fuse qb wing and finishing kit for exp119 on order. Hopefully I get a quick response, and I’ll post here.

1. Do the qb kits contain lcp?
2. Can I switch qb fuse to sb fuse?
3. Can I switch qb wing to sb wing?

Reply from phone call with Van's kit orders today, QB kits will not contain lcp.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

It was not always that way. In the 1970s-1980s US automakers were challenged by Japanese automakers on quality. Detroit had a policy to never stop the line.

Most of the time a defect was either fixed as the line moved or it end up it in the parking lot as a finished vehicle. Consequently many problem never got fixed prior to sale. Japanese manufactures immediately stopped the line if any worker saw a problem. They would solve the problem as a team a then restart the line. Eventually Detroit learned this lesion from Japan and started
producing high quality vehicles.

I am doctor and serve on our local hospital board. Hospital management encourage nurses and other health care employees to "stop the line".
Another words speak up as soon some looks wrong. This a big culture change especially if a nurse if see something off on a on senor team member or physician's action. Quality goes way up once every employee feels supported to speak up.

At my organization, EVERY employee has the authority to stop ANY activity if they see a problem or hazard. And the safety/mission success/QA personnel have an entirely separate chain of command to which they can elevate an issue. The key here is to *not ignore or hide* a problem, but to dig them out, fix them and avoid bigger problems later.

I like the saying that Toto Wolff, Mercedes F1 Principal, had (granted, they've had a tough couple of years lately, but the point still stands): We don't blame the person [who reported it], we blame the problem. See it, say it, fix it.

The large number of aerospace folks here should understand this basic failure by Van's.

 

[keitht]

FAA Kit Approval

Here is the FAA document providing kit approval. Note the one up from the bottom paragraph. This approval is a prerequisite for getting an EAB airworthiness certificate granted.

 

[skylor]

Quality and Parts Control

You’re missing the point.
I’m certainly not advocating for a Boeing style level of process control - just something adequate and more than was being done.
Boeing almost went under as a consequence of lack of configuration and process control on the 747-200 development - probably would have done without the DuPont bailout.
The stats for Chapter 11 recoveries are not good - 10% of those going in make it the rest go into liquidation.

Even small businesses can implement adequate QA processes. Had Van's done so, the LCP problem would have either not shown up at all or been caught and fixed very early, limiting the exposure. A complete *lack* of QC is inexcusable.

Similarly, basic inventory control and tracking is readily available and would have allowed for rapid identification of affected customers instead of the massive set of potential cases that now exist.

This is basic aerospace engineering and manufacturing, not rocket science (or commercial transport aircraft industry).

I'm not suggesting that Van's didn't make significant mistakes, I was simply responding for calls of "aerospace" processes and the use of "Boeing" and "processes" as examples.

Trust me, when you start talking about "aerospace processes" you are talking about unfathomable cost increases. Extensive parts traceability and full aerospace QC are not cheap! There is a reason fully certified single engine piston aircraft cost $500K and up! I say this with 28 years of experience in aerospace manufacturing engineering and project management where I have a lot of insight into both quality as well as cost aspects of production.

Again, I acknowledge that Vans Aircraft severely dropped the ball on the laser cut parts issue as well as the fuselage primer/corrosion issue. I suspect that Vans personnel were well aware of both of these issues early on but were far too slow to recognize the severity and respond to them. Even with quality processes and a discrepancy reporting system in place, if the same people that made decisions previously are the ones making disposition decisions then the processes alone won't solve the problems.

Finally, in the case of amateur built experimental aircraft, much of the onus of quality falls on the builder (i.e. the Manufacturer of Record). Certainly builders have a right to expect that Van's will supply quality parts to begin with, but ultimately it's the builders responsibility to identify and replace potentially defective parts, as well as to incur some of the labor costs of doing so. This is nothing new. For example I recall hearing a story 20 years ago about defective RV-6 or -7 Quick Build wings that had the left and right spars swapped, effective making them upside down. I recall that while Van's supplied some replacement part, but builder ultimately had to remove and swap or replace the spars himself. Many here may not like this approach, but again if Van's were to implement full aerospace level quality and traceability processes, kit prices would increase 2 or 3 fold minimum!

Skylor

 

[RV7A Flyer]

I'm not suggesting that Van's didn't make significant mistakes, I was simply responding for calls of "aerospace" processes and the use of "Boeing" and "processes" as examples.

Trust me, when you start talking about "aerospace processes" you are talking about unfathomable cost increases. Extensive parts traceability and full aerospace QC are not cheap! There is a reason fully certified single engine piston aircraft cost $500K and up! I say this with 28 years of experience in aerospace manufacturing engineering and project management where I have a lot of insight into both quality as well as cost aspects of production.

Again, I acknowledge that Vans Aircraft severely dropped the ball on the laser cut parts issue as well as the fuselage primer/corrosion issue. I suspect that Vans personnel were well aware of both of these issues early on but were far too slow to recognize the severity and respond to them. Even with quality processes and a discrepancy reporting system in place, if the same people that made decisions previously are the ones making disposition decisions then the processes alone won't solve the problems.

Finally, in the case of amateur built experimental aircraft, much of the onus of quality falls on the builder (i.e. the Manufacturer of Record). Certainly builders have a right to expect that Van's will supply quality parts to begin with, but ultimately it's the builders responsibility to identify and replace potentially defective parts, as well as to incur some of the labor costs of doing so. This is nothing new. For example I recall hearing a story 20 years ago about defective RV-6 or -7 Quick Build wings that had the left and right spars swapped, effective making them upside down. I recall that while Van's supplied some replacement part, but builder ultimately had to remove and swap or replace the spars himself. Many here may not like this approach, but again if Van's were to implement full aerospace level quality and traceability processes, kit prices would increase 2 or 3 fold minimum!

Skylor

"Unfathomable" cost increases? Hardly. We use many, many small businesses for parts manufacturing and they all have some sort of QC in place. They have to, in order to get on the Approved Supplier List. But we also do receiving inspections and regular on-site reviews of their processes to ensure they're sticking to the approved manufacturing processes. Van's had neither. 100+ employees and apparently not ONE who pulled parts at random from deliveries and checked them, nor went out every few months to observe them being made. You're right, though...IF anyone even noticed the problem, someone made the decision to ignore it. That's not a process problem, that's a culture problem.

Reporting Culture: We report our concerns. In a Reporting Culture, everyone is encouraged to report safety concerns. An atmosphere of trust exists between leadership and employees, with employees knowing that important information will be heard and acted upon appropriately. No one should ever be afraid to speak up; it could save a life

 

[Ironflight]

Here is the FAA document providing kit approval. Note the one up from the bottom paragraph. This approval is a prerequisite for getting an EAB airworthiness certificate granted.

This is the standard letter saying that the FAA has evaluated the kit and found it to meet the 51% rule - it specifically states (in bold face) that the airplane can not be represented as certificated, certified, or approved. In fact, if you buy the kit and then have someone else build it, a DAR or FAA ASI can deny you an AWC because it no longer meets the 51% rule for amateur construction. The FAA does not, in any way, approve E-AB aircraft designs - just if the kit meets the 51% rule.

This is not “Certified Aviation”.

 

[keitht]

This is the standard letter saying that the FAA has evaluated the kit and found it to meet the 51% rule - it specifically states (in bold face) that the airplane can not be represented as certificated, certified, or approved. In fact, if you buy the kit and then have someone else build it, a DAR or FAA ASI can deny you an AWC because it no longer meets the 51% rule for amateur construction. The FAA does not, in any way, approve E-AB aircraft designs - just if the kit meets the 51% rule.

This is not “Certified Aviation”.

I didn’t say it was certified - not even close! What I said was that the FAA letter was the basis for getting a certificate of airworthiness in the Experimental EAB category. If the FAA were to pull the letter of kit approval then Experimental EAB would not be a pre condition option and a certificate of airworthiness would have to be sought in one of the other categories ( Experimental Exhibition, Experimental Developmental etc) . Is it likely the FAA would pull the letter of kit approval? No - but it is possible if the FAA saw exposure from the LCP problem or other manufacturing performed by Vans. If any DAR (F) doing an initial airworthiness inspection chooses to defer on issuing a certificate based on seeing LCP parts with cracks he/she is quite within their rights to do so - in the same way as if they saw anything that in their opinion made the aircraft un-airworthy.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

I didn’t say it was certified - not even close! What I said was that the FAA letter was the basis for getting a certificate of airworthiness in the Experimental EAB category. If the FAA were to pull the letter of kit approval then Experimental EAB would not be a pre condition option and a certificate of airworthiness would have to be sought in one of the other categories ( Experimental Exhibition, Experimental Developmental etc) .

No, it just means that each builder would have to complete this or a similar checklist or provide evidence of meeting the 51% rule, instead of just citing or providing the FAA letter in order to get the EAB AWC.

 

[airguy]

For example I recall hearing a story 20 years ago about defective RV-6 or -7 Quick Build wings that had the left and right spars swapped, effective making them upside down. I recall that while Van's supplied some replacement part, but builder ultimately had to remove and swap or replace the spars himself. Many here may not like this approach, but again if Van's were to implement full aerospace level quality and traceability processes, kit prices would increase 2 or 3 fold minimum!

Skylor

In 2008 my 9A wing kit shipped to me with the main wing spar flanges bent to the wrong angles. I talked to Vans about it, they suggested I could try to rebend them myself with a wood arrangement (sent me a drawing of it), but I said that I wasn't comfortable with that. I paid for dimensionally correct spars, and I wanted that. They replaced them and even paid the shipping. I found out later that I was not the only recipient of the mis-bent spars, they had some sort of production issue for a batch of them.

 

[vic syracuse]

No, it just means that each builder would have to complete this or a similar checklist or provide evidence of meeting the 51% rule, instead of just citing or providing the FAA letter in order to get the EAB AWC.

This is correct. Approval for an airworthiness has NOTHING to do with the kit listing. For all practical puposes, you could make an airplane out of cardboard and apply for an airworthiness certificate. Sure, it might be difficult to get it wihtout a lot of restrictions and a "more enhanced" test program, but this how experimental aviation works.

Vic

 

[Major-Tom]

willing to acept new prices but

I still would want to built my second RV, but the offered new prices are just madness. The incrise for my ready to ship RV14 QB wings is 83%, the incrise for my QB Fuselage is 87%. This no price adjustment. This is madness. This is letting you pay twice for the same thing.


And then, when someone realises the RV14 QB is over his budget now, there is no way to change to slowbuilt or any more affordabale model. Why not let people change from QB to SB??? Would`t that generate enough cashflow, or what?


Sorry for my wording, but I feel like skinned alive right now.

 

[Jonnyb]

Some of these price rises are crazy.
The kit for SB0036 has gone from $36 to over $80, and increase of over 100%!

 

[PaulvS]

Some of these price rises are crazy.
The kit for SB0036 has gone from $36 to over $80, and increase of over 100%!

Agreed, moreover that kit has increased from $33 to $113.75 for RV-6 non pre-punched. The parts did not need drilling during manufacture and yet they are more expensive than the RV-7 version that has holes!

I buggered up one of the brackets during installation and needed to replace it. I know Van's is in trouble but I don't like the feeling of being screwed for it. So I just bought some 4130 plate locally and made my own bracket. The new Van's behaviour is destroying goodwill, I fear.

 

[Jonnyb]

Agreed, moreover that kit has increased from $33 to $113.75 for RV-6 non pre-punched. The parts did not need drilling during manufacture and yet they are more expensive than the RV-7 version that has holes!

I buggered up one of the brackets during installation and needed to replace it. I know Van's is in trouble but I don't like the feeling of being screwed for it. So I just bought some 4130 plate locally and made my own bracket. The new Van's behaviour is destroying goodwill, I fear.

I agree.
Price rises to save Vans is one thing, but this feels like getting fleeced. The only thing I can think is that they are recouping their engineering costs as well, and we can expect much more of this going forward.

 

[PhatRV]

This is the latest interview with Clyde Hamstreet published by Kitplanes Magazine

https://www.kitplanes.com/vans-bankruptcy-update-next-steps/

There are about 1500 customer for kits.

There were 550 live customers on the live portal and more than 60% would accept the new contract terms.

"We started off with approximately 550 live customers on a live portal to make sure nothing would break down. We were pleased that out of those first customers who got notice, more than 60% of them said, “Yes, I’d like to renew my contract at the revised price and terms.”

If the first group was 550 people, approximately, how large is the entire group?
I think it’s about 1500 for kits only. We still need to work out [a plan] for those people who order engines and propellers and avionics, or other third-party parts. We obviously can’t raise those prices like we have on the kits."