What happened to the Grounding of the S1 & S2

[EVRoosevelt]

Where did the info on the grounding of the S1 S2 Cubs go I am trying to figure out if it includes the SSCarbon Cub kits?
EV

[Pete D]

I believe all of the Carbon Cub EXs (kit built Carbon Cubs) have a different style of tail brace wire attachment than the factory built Carbon Cub SS aircraft. If you look up the Safety Alert number 6 in the Owners Support section of Cubcrafters.com you should be able to compare the parts pictured to those on your plane and you'll see you have something different.

Pete D.

[couleeone]

As thread starter and moderator I deleted the thread to allow this to be handled more amicable than my initial posting. If my initial remarks were out of line, I sincerely apologize as CC always has and will take care of their customers appropriately! I have always have been and will continue being an ambassador for CubCrafters!

It is unlikely your Carbon Cub was affected by the safety alert, the serial numbers were 1 thru 99. It is mute anyway as CC head engineer Steve Hamblin responded that the safety alert basically was produced in error or typo as it wasn't intended to ground the fleet. I repeat the flight is not grounded" Steve will be re-issuing the safety alert with corrections soon.

Maybe he can post updated details on this thread.

Geo

[Ethen Hughes]

As you may be aware a Safety Alert, SA0006 Rev A, was recently re-released calling for the immediate replacement of the empennage wire attach brackets prior to next flight. This timing was in error, the action should be inspection before next flight and replacement of the parts at next maintenance action (annual or 100 hr).

SA0006 Rev B has been resent to all customers within the affected serial number range and has been corrected. Again, please inspect your fittings closely prior to next flight, if no corrosion or cracks are noted then the aircraft may be operated until the next maintenance action. As noted, if parts were replaced at the initial release no further action is required. If parts were not replaced at this time, as called out in SA0006 Rev B, the replacement of these parts is mandatory at the next maintenance action. We are manufacturing the new stainless steel parts (also powder coated) as fast as possible and have lowered the cost to $290 per set. Feel free to contact me at your convenience to arrange purchase of the new parts.
We apologize for the confusion and wish to assure you of CubCrafters' ongoing commitment to safe operation and support of the fleet.

Best Regards,

Ethen Hughes
Customer Support Manager
CubCrafters

[rkortge]

Before I start this little note I have to say I am wrong a lot so If I am off base I wouldn't be surprised. We have purchased these very expensive NEW airplanes for many different reasons. One of the reasons I bought mine was so I wouldn't have to put up with the OLD plane problems. Being a farmer and knowing any type of machinery new or old will break I am not at all surprised that there are some minor issues needing to be fixed with these planes over time. I do however feel CC is responsible for some of these flaws not related to wear or other pilot error. If the policy makers at CC purchased a piece of equipment for this kind of money would they be happy spending more money to fix the manufacturers defects. This post is NOT combative even though it may sound that way. Its hard to be gentle in type sometimes, but I am trying. Producing a great product is what CC does well I feel they should reconsider some of these charges to good customers and fix the things they need to. This is only one man's observation. Interested in feedback.

With all respect Rich Kortge #82

[Pokette]

I agree with Rich. When a manufacturing defect is found even if we are past 1 year CC should step up and cover the cost. As a minimum cover the cost of parts.
Respectfully
Diana

[randylervold]

This might be a bit of a rhetorical question, but at what point should a manufacturer stop absorbing the cost of continual improvements? Though each issue/case is a bit different we have typically used the aircraft warranty period as a cutoff. If we look at precedent, what other aircraft manufacturer would provide n/c parts in such a case?

The original fittings in question here are not defective, they were up to the task strengthwise but did not have the corrosion resistance that was needed over the long haul. We therefore developed an alternative and are making it available. I have reduced the price to $290, below our internal cost frankly, and that does not include any development time. I have never owned a new Cessna, Cirrus, Aviat, American Champion, or American Legend product but have heard anectodally that they would not cover such a cost either. I have owned used aircraft from both Cessna and Bellanca and when ADs were posted there was no such thing as n/c parts.

We have every intention of supporting our fleet over the long run which means a continuing investment in engineering where issues arise as the product matures. Can a manufacturer really be reasonably expected to cover the parts cost as well, and if so for how long? If the manufacturer does not remain financially solvent then it orphans the fleet, no one wins.

[rkortge]

Randy, thanks for giving me the point of view from CC. I respect your post on this issue. I do have to question a couple things however. If we were talking about an" improvement" to the aircraft you wouldn't have heard a thing from me. Since there was a safety alert issued for the replacement of the part I don't view that as an improvement. Improvements should not be the responsibility CC. Safety issues should. I also agree that things can't go on forever. I cant imagine CC feels like the useful life of these particular pieces have come to an end. CC should not have to replace pieces on a 15, 20, 30 year old plane in my opinion.
Like I said in the first post, the CC policy makers should put themselves the customers shoes. Ask yourself if you would be fine with this policy having purchased a piece of equipment from a dealer. I understand CC needs to be there to support the fleet and know without a doubt they will. The way these things are handled are not up to me. If I want to make policy decisions in the aircraft manufacturing industry I should build my own business. I DON'T...... CC knows what they are doing and has been successful for a long time, you guys should keep doing what you are doing. You do it well. This decision, in my opinion, isn't correct but I'm only one customer.

Respectfully Rich Kortge #82

[couleeone]

Rich, Diana and others following this thread and issue. I believe CC has made an acceptable compromise by reducing the price to below their costs to help us get through this together. Further, Steve Hamblin clarifying the requirement for replacement from before next flight to next maintenance action but inspection before next flight really helped the fleet from being grounded with no parts available. that was the biggest thing to me!

I rather not have to replace the parts at all since mine are not corroded and is not likely to happen since I am always hangared with heat and now hangared in AZ with no humidity or salt water withing 400 miles!

However that being said I will replace the parts at the next 100 hr and it get behind me!

We are all sucking up something so lets go forward in a cooperative environment and continuing enjoying our little birds and I will always be grateful for Jim and the CC team for creating and building such an amazing performing aircraft and such a joy to fly!!! And I own an antique S1!!

Respectfully,

Geo
S1 #6 with 686 hrs and adding daily

[greg]

As a former manufacturer and marketer of my own products, current owner of a Carbon Cub and former CC Top Cub owner, I would like to share my unique prospective on this delicate issue.
Rule # one as a manufacturer- take good care of your good customers. They will prove to be your most valuable resource for advertising, marketing and brand support for your great product. Think of your customers as your partners. Always always always be fair. In the event of a push (as they say in a card game) the customer takes all pushes.
#Two-With the conception and development of any new product there will be some wrinkles to iron out after the product has been released for production and market, no matter how well we think we have done our design homework. It is our responsiblity as manufacturers and marketers to address the deficienies, then correct them in a fair manner, not write them off as: end of usefull life, customer abuse, special unintended use, special climate use or any other number of ways to convey the responsibility to our customers (partners). There is no shame in admitting we are not perfect and our customers will respect that. Not only will they respect it, they will put an extra point on the scoreboard for us when our team comes up against the other team (our competitors). It does cost us financially, as manufacturers to correct the unforseen bugs in our designs, but what is the cost of a lost customer, or the loss of a repeat customer. The positives far out-weigh the negitives here if we look into the future at the big picture.
Cub Crafters has developed some great airplanes and continues to be the ground-breakers in their field. With a little polishing on product improvement policy and customer relations after the sale, this could be the company we'll be reading about in Fortune 500.
My Golden Rule as a CEO "The very best deals work equally well for both us and our customers (partners)" PERIOD

W Greg Gregory
Mfg./Marketing
Consultant

Randy, thanks for giving me the point of view from CC. I respect your post on this issue. I do have to question a couple things however. If we were talking about an" improvement" to the aircraft you wouldn't have heard a thing from me. Since there was a safety alert issued for the replacement of the part I don't view that as an improvement. Improvements should not be the responsibility CC. Safety issues should. I also agree that things can't go on forever. I cant imagine CC feels like the useful life of these particular pieces have come to an end. CC should not have to replace pieces on a 15, 20, 30 year old plane in my opinion.
Like I said in the first post, the CC policy makers should put themselves the customers shoes. Ask yourself if you would be fine with this policy having purchased a piece of equipment from a dealer. I understand CC needs to be there to support the fleet and know without a doubt they will. The way these things are handled are not up to me. If I want to make policy decisions in the aircraft manufacturing industry I should build my own business. I DON'T...... CC knows what they are doing and has been successful for a long time, you guys should keep doing what you are doing. You do it well. This decision, in my opinion, isn't correct but I'm only one customer.

Respectfully Rich Kortge #82