Marvin Kaye wrote:

At 09:22 AM 3/15/99 -0800, you wrote:

Anderson Ed wrote:

So the question is do my modifications to the airducts/plenums and air
intakes for my oil cooler constitute major modifications.  My
interpretation is that they do not - as they do not directly effect the
controllability, airframe structure worthiness, or powerplant
(directly).  However, I strongly suspect that my interpretation would be
tested in court by my insurance company.

Thanks Marv, but considering that it took me three months to finally get
my bird inspected and I only have 5 more months before I have to move, I
just don't see waiting a month or two for each mod to my air
plenum/duct/intake.  Fortunately, this last mod (snorkel nozzel) looks
like the last one I will have to make.  Might be worthwhile to get it
reinspected after all such mods just to be on the legalistically correct
side of the track.

Ed

Hi Ed,

The unfortunate upshot of this particular court decision is that they (the
appellate court) have managed to wrap FAR 21.93 with FAR 43 App. A to
determine just what _does_ constitute a major alteration.   Now that that
has been accomplished, it's obvious that Avemco (and any other insurer for
that matter) has been granted a permanent weasel clause which could be
quoted at the drop of a hat should any of us experimental aircraft builders
find ourselves trying to establish that a given mod was within the bounds
of FAR 21.93.

Here's a quote from the Long Beach FSDO newsletter regarding major
alterations that you might find interesting:

The certification regulations, both for the engine and aircraft, require

  extensive testing of the powerplant installation to verify its reliable
operation
  within established operation limitations on parameters such as temperature,
  RPM, pressure, carburetor icing, etc. Any alteration that would require
  retest or engineering analysis to measure the effect and reverify such
reliable
  operation would be a major alteration. This would include any alteration
that
  could change airflow, either around (cooling) or through (power) the engine.
  Such alterations might be changes to the cowling shape, cooling airflow
  baffles, and induction and exhaust systems. Similarly, pressure, or
  temperature (such as filter installations) would be major alterations.
Changes
  to powerplant controls are generally a major alteration because they require
  test and evaluation to determine (measure) the effect.
<

I understand and agree with your reluctance to getting the FAA involved
with each of your mods, as that would have most certainly added months, if
not years, to the process of getting the wrinkles ironed out.  The
unfortunate part is that if an accident should occur and the FAA hadn't
been notified of your changes, your insurance company would leave you
spinning in the wind.

It is my understanding that a letter to the FSDO regarding such changes
will normally bring a response which says that the testing period needs to
be extended by x hours, or, if the changes are made after the testing
period is over, that a new testing period of x hours be initiated, at the
end of which time the Airworthiness Certificate is returned to its regular
status.  It is my belief that the simple act of providing that document to
the FSDO once again brings your airworthiness cert back into compliance
with FAR 21.93, and you should be able to go about your testing even while
waiting for the FAA's directive regarding the change and new testing period
required.  As the holder of the repairman's certificate for your aircraft
you have that ability.  I'm not a lawyer, so my interpretation may be
completely wrong, but my purpose here is not to stop anyone from doing
testing or performing mods, rather to suggest that there likely is a way to
do them and still have an insurance policy which will remain unquestionably
in force should an accident occur.

Anyway, I'm glad that the snorkel duct is doing the job and especially
pleased that all this insurance talk is nothing more than speculation for
us.  I never want any of my friends to have to test whether or not their
insurance company is going to work for them.

   <Marv>

Just what we need! More bloody paper work. The EAA ought to make the FAA
prove that this is a real problem.

Paul

The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org