Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from marvkaye.olsusa.com ([205.245.9.110]) by truman.olsusa.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35)
          with SMTP id com for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>;
          Mon, 15 Mar 1999 03:43:24 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990315034526.038c3d10@olsusa.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 03:45:26 -0500
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
From: Marvin Kaye <marvkaye@olsusa.com>
Subject: Re: Major Alterations
In-Reply-To: <76714baa.36ecaaaf@aol.com>
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Scott Krueger wrote:

>Please note that someone has incorrectly pointed to the Long Beach FSDO and
>its' references to FAR 43.  
>
>You are the manufacturer of your EXPERIMENTAL airplane and it has no type
>certificate.  FAR 43 is a reference for type certificated aircraft which is
>why your airworthiness limitations reference only the DEFINITION in FAR
21.93.

>After you read the Long Beach FSDO  and its reference to FAR 43, throw it
>away.  This is clearly aimed at mechanics messing with type certificated
>commercially built aircraft.

I beg to differ with you, sir... this whole discussion stemmed from
reference to the Avemco v Davenport court decision.  It was the appellate
court who upheld the decision against Mr. Davenport and used the
definitions provided in FAR 43 to shoot down his argument that his
modifications were supposedly acceptable within the scope of FAR 21.93.
Now that the court has managed to tie the two together, I think it is folly
to assume that part 43 Appendix A doesn't apply.

My point is that it doesn't matter how _YOU_ perceive the FARs, but how a
court might.  I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew what they were
up against, and to suggest that it would be better to err on the side of
caution than to take anything for granted.  While it may appear that our
experimental aircraft "exist in a wonderful and unique crack in the the
FARs", when you get right down to it, that crack can be filled to your
detriment if you're not careful.  Using FAR 43 Appendix A as a guideline to
decide what you can and can't do without getting the FAA involved looks to
be a matter of common sense at this point, especially now that the court
has managed to wrap it around FAR 21.93.

   <Marv>