[Peetwo]

ATSB Safety Message: Popinjay an agent for Vans Aircraft -   

Via PJ HQ:

Van’s Aircraft owners urged to consider retrofitting new engine mount nose gear system

The ATSB is urging Van’s Aircraft owners to consider retrofitting a stronger nose gear and engine mount system on RV-6A, RV-7A and RV-9A models, after a number of notable nose-over accidents.

In January a Van’s RV-9A encountered a tailwind during landing on a private grass airstrip on French Island, Victoria, resulting in a hard landing. The aircraft bounced, and its nose gear then collapsed. The aircraft subsequently nosed over, and came to a rest inverted, resulting in serious injuries to both occupants, and substantial damage to the aircraft.

The accident was similar to a few others, including one investigated by the ATSB in 2017. In that accident, the nose gear of a Van’s RV-6A collapsed after the aircraft bounced during a heavy landing on a dirt airstrip in north Queensland.

In light of these accidents, the ATSB is urging owners and operators of Van’s RV-6A, RV-7A and RV-9A aircraft to consider Van’s Aircraft Service Letter 19-04-30.

The service letter details options and instructs a method for retrofitting older aircraft with a new style of engine mount/nose gear system, designed similarly to the engine mount and nose gear found on the newer RV-10A and RV-14A models.

“While touching down on the nose landing gear should be avoided, the newer nose gear design has been developed with stronger shock absorption, which should reduce the likelihood of nose-over accidents,” ATSB Manager, Transport Safety Derek Hoffmeister said.

“If you haven’t already, I would urge you to consider retrofitting the new nose gear and engine mount to your RV-6A, RV-7A, and RV-9A aircraft.”

Read the Van’s Aircraft Service Letter: www.vansaircraft.com/service-information-and-revisions/sl-19-04-30/

Publication Date
16/06/2023

A P86 comment in reply, via BRB email chains:

P86: It’s an interesting post. It’s good to see technical improvement, but strangely, there isn’t one mention of CASA here. Aren’t they responsible for airworthiness?

Also, the terminology used here - “urged” and “consider”?? Does this mean the certified components are unsafe?
Is an “urge” how we manage safety now?  ICAO use “should and shall”, “urge” isn’t part of the vernacular!

This may be pedantic, but it’s a good example of how these independent bodies don’t work together when they should - technical advice, documented by the NAA and disseminated by the appropriate body.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/australian-transport-safety-bureau_vans-aircraft-owners-urged-to-consider-retrofitting-activity-7075274922398285824-UI0K?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

I would add, why has it taken the ATSB 6+ years after the Starke ALA accident and 3 years after Van's Aircraft issued their suggested service letter - HERE - to join the dots and make the above OBS? Also consider that the mentioned January incident is apparently not being investigated by the ATSB...

ASN Wiki reference: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/306096

MTF...P2