Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from marvkaye.olsusa.com ([205.245.9.94]) by truman.olsusa.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35)
          with SMTP id com for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>;
          Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:51:18 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990314105313.00a1ac10@olsusa.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:53:13 -0500
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
From: Marvin Kaye <marvkaye@olsusa.com>
Subject: Re: Major Alterations
In-Reply-To: <msg8098.thr-5b79c39.a2c2a@sagus.se>
References: <3.0.3.32.19990313234331.009ddad0@olsusa.com>
 <3.0.3.32.19990314010522.00aa59b0@olsusa.com>
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
I'm pleased to see that my 'Major Alterations' topic has been so warmly
embraced by the participants in this forum.  Scott Krueger's repost of his
LNN article is certainly appreciated, and helps underscore the importance
of this subject.  Thanks, Brent, for supplying the associated data from the
FARs, and thanks to n295vv@aol.com (sure, Dave, hide behind your n-number
<g>) for your questions and comments as well.

After reading the court decision I wondered the same things that n295vv
did, whether or not the alterations to the fuel system were made by the
person holding the repairman's certificate, and if so, whether or not he
documented them.  It would appear that the changes were, in fact,
documented, otherwise how could they possibly know that the system had been
changed back and forth four times prior to the accident?  That being said,
it becomes apparent that notifying the FAA of the changes was most
certainly in order, and receiving either an amended Airworthiness Cert,
going through an additional short testing period, and jumping through
whatever hoops might be thrown up by the FAA in the process is well worth
the effort it would take to make them aware of the changes.  It obviously
can make the difference between your insurer paying on a claim versus
winding up in court and having 'The System' decide that the Airworthiness
Cert on your aircraft is null and void which flings the weasle door for the
insurance company open wide.  (BTW, any changes to the fuel delivery system
are, in fact, major alterations according to the FARs, that fact seemed
pretty clear to me... personally, even if it were unclear, I think I would
make the FAA aware of the changes, just to be sure I wasn't providing the
insurance company with a barn-sized back door out of my coverage.)

I have written the local FSDO a short letter asking for guidance about what
would be required of me under the hypothetical situation of doing major
changes to a cowling to help solve a cooling problem on an experimental
with an alternative powerplant, both during and after the 40-hour testing
period... I'm anxious to hear what they will say and will share whatever
info I receive from them here with you as soon as it arrives.  (Changes to
the cowling which affect airflow _are_ considered Major Alterations,
consider that next time you decide to add a NACA duct and not write it down!)

   <Marv>