<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
Marv,

There is no reference to FAR43 in the appellate court statement.

In any event, as I stated in my article:

One must LOG the changes one makes, along with their effects and any
tests/checks to verify the change.  This logging is necessary to satisfy a
variety of FAR requirements.

One should then write to the FAA, outlining the changes, claiming that they
are "minor" by the definitions listed in 91.23 and asking for a written reply.
In my district,  most will be considered minor and a "major" would, at the
very worst, require some fly off time to be recorded in your logs.  The
resultant reply from the FAA is considered the "Experimental aircraft 337"
form and should also be filed with your logs.  The FAA would probably not
require "recertification" of a change to the fuel delivery system in an
EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.  

Why do this?  So that one does NOT leave the determination of a change as
major or minor and whether recertification is required, up to an insurance
company lawyer or an uninformed judge.  If Mr. Davenport had such a reply
document from the FAA, his insurance company could not have used the court to
interpret FAAese and wiggle out of its duties to pay.

Scott Krueger
N92EX


[Scott... from section II in the decision in question:

[2] Davenport argues that the series of modifications he made to his
aircraft's fuel system did not constitute a "major change" because
the fuel system at the time of the crash was in the same configuration
as at the time of the initial certification. We reject this argument.
Common sense dictates that altering the method of delivering fuel to the
engine of an aircraft has an obvious and substantial effect on the
"reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics
affecting the airworthiness of the [aircraft]." 14 C.F.R. S 21.93(a)."2"
[note: this "2" ref's a footnote]
The fact that Davenport made repeated changes to the fuel system did
not remedy his failure to notify the FAA prior to making each change.
Each change Davenport made to the fuel system was major, and each change
therefore required FAA notification under the operating limitation.

[Here is footnote "2"] "2" Indeed, in an analogous regulation applying
to the maintenance and repair of non-experimental aircraft, the FAA has
defined major alterations as including "[c]hanges to the basic design
of the fuel . . . system[ ]." 14 C.F.R. S 43 app. (a)(1)(xii). ]