Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:14:19 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-320930@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.109.1.8; envelope-from=Christopher.Zavatson@udlp.com
From: "Christopher Zavatson" <Christopher.Zavatson@udlp.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Prop change
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Bill,,
What happens for experimentals undergoing a major change (certified before =
the new wording) depends on what your local FSDO put in your specific =
operating limitations.  There appears to be a lot of local discretion =
here.  A few weeks ago, I had a half hour discussion with my FSDO on what =
kind of change would require recertification, as described in my insurance =
policy.  Their reply was that there is none that would require 'recertifica=
tion'.  My operating limitations only require me to notify the FSDO of any =
major change per 21.93 and wait for a reply.  In FAR 21.93 a major change =
is defined as <<A ``minor change'' is one that has no appreciable effect =
on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational =
characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of =
the product. All other changes are ``major changes'' >>
I used to believe the definition for 'major alteration' as defined in 43 =
App. A was applicable, however in the applicability section (43.1) =
experimentals are specifically excluded.  I also spoke with my insurance =
company, Avemco, who told me that as long as the FSDO was happy, they were =
happy.
So the bottom line is, know what is in your operating limitations and talk =
to your local FSDO.  They can all be different.
Chris Zavatson
N91CZ