Return-Path: Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com ([198.81.17.9]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:30:23 -0500 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv19.3) id kLBEa13620 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:32:14 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 01:32:14 EST To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Subject: Major Alterations X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> OK. Fine. FAR 43 was used by the JUDGE. My point is NOT to let a court interpret the FARS. In my region, if Mr. Davenport had written to the FAA, their reply would not have taken the same position as the court did. The insurance company could not have used the "failure to re-certify" argument to void the insurance coverage if the FAA was "notified", regardless of the FAA's categorization as minor, significant or major. I would rather depend on an FAA expert's (inspector or DAR) written reply than some judge. Does anyone know a judge who is building a Lancair? Scott Krueger N92EX