Alan Tolle wrote:
I have done six of these certification programs and I guess I get a
different slant on things.
I, too, was confused about the court decision in favor of Avemco. But they
really got the pilot/owner for violation of FAR 21.93, which violation
definitely voids insurance coverage from the time of violation onward.
When it comes right down to it, the FAA knows very little about the aircraft
you built.. When the man from the FAA FSDO, (or your DAR) visits, he has
three tasks --- check for your registration with Oklahoma City and proper
N-numbers, check for visible experimental sticker, passenger warning
sticker, and permanent builders plate, and give you your airworthiness
certificate and operating limitations. He is required to explain the latter
to you.
That is it. But don't get the idea that "certification" is complete when
he drives away. The aircraft is not really "certified" until the required
test period time has been flown, and the builder has written that statement
in the log book "I certify that this aircraft has been....."
The whole purpose of the test period and the restricted test area is to find
problems and correct them, whatever that may take. No one in the FAA knows
more about an aircraft then its builder, and the Feds grant that fact these
days. So the builder can change just about anything he wants, from
propellers to cooling to control surfaces. If he has a lot of trouble
nailing down cooling, for example, I really doubt that the local FSDO wants
to be bothered by his individual trials and tribulations. After all, the
explanation for anything that goes wrong at this point is that "the aircraft
was in its test period." That statement satisfies the public that the FAA
is doing its job, and you can even read it in the NTSB accident reports.
The public presumes that the airplane crashed because it was being "tested."
Once in a great while that is true.
There is a sentence in my most recently issued operating limitations, which
are dated 9-10-98, that says I must notify the FSDO of any "major change as
defined in FAR 21.93." It is a hold over from the days of mandatory
pre-closure and pre-flight inspections, which inspections were discontinued
in 1983. (This same sentence is found in my first set of operating
limitations dated 7-30 80.) I have neither heard nor read of an enforcement
of this during the test period. I suppose that if a builder wanted to
change from a Lycoming engine to a rotary engine in your 38th hour of
testing, there would be a reason to consider extending the test period
length.
When the test period is completed and log entry is made to that effect, the
aircraft is deemed "certified" the freedom to make changes disappears..
There should be no need for major changes and if the builder decides to make
one, say to convert from a wood prop to an Hartzell constant speed, it is
back in the test area for ten hours to repeat any pertinent testing. The
Feds won"t help in any way, but the letter of the law requires that you not
only let them know, but that you also get their permission, in writing!
Apparently the Long Eze driver did not do this. Avemco found the loophole
and crawled through it. Shame on them.
What is the answer? I don't know, but I will say it is a shame for one to
get hung by one's own aircraft's log books. How did Avemco know that the
fuel system had been changed? I doubt there was a snitch somewhere, or that
big brother was really watching.
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter. Powered by Linux.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ http://www.linux.org