From: Sky2high@aol.com
Message-ID: <12a07ece.36ebb4c8@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:08:24 EST
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Subject: Losing your insurance
Mime-Version: 1.0

X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
The following is a copy of an article I wrote for the Lancair Newsletter and
it appeared in the November 1998 issue (I think is was the Nov issue).  

Just Don't Log It

No, I'm not a Spotted Owl complaining to a lumberjack!  "Just don't log it" is
the phrase I keep hearing from fellow birdmen when I explain my dilemma - I've
already logged my modifications and now, should I have an accident, I'm in
danger of losing all property and liability insurance coverage.  

Why?  Read my letter to the FAA and their illuminating response.  Afterwards,
I'll address the danger of being an anti-logger and why your misplaced pencil
leads to misplaced security.

THE LETTER:
To:	Е
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate
Manufacturing Inspection Satellite Office
2300 E. Devon Avenue
Des Plaines, IL 60018

Date:	24 August 1998

Re:	Airworthiness certification of N92EX

I am writing this letter to seek clarification of the N92EX Airworthiness
Certificate (6-27-96) Operating Restriction 7 (Experimental - Amateur-Built
Aircraft Operating Limitations), to wit:

7. The FAA Certification Office must be notified and their response received
in writing prior to flying this aircraft after incorporating a major change as
defined by part 21 Section 21.93.

I am motivated to do this by an article appearing in the July 1998 EAA
publication "Sport Aviation" entitled "Changing Your Aircraft" by Jack
Harrington and Alan L. Farkas.  The article is subtitled "A major change to
your aircraft could void your insurance policy even if it doesn't really
change the aircraft."  I have enclosed a copy for your information.

The article states that the insurance company successfully rejected a claim
because its' policy excludes all classes of coverage when "Е after a
modification which requires recertification." A Federal Appeals Court agreed
that the builder/owner of the experimental aircraft had made changes which the
Court considered "major" and the owner had not "notified" the FAA as required
by the operating restriction listed above.  The Court concluded that such a
violation "Е could only be corrected by Е recertification."  Note that, in
this case, a panel of judges made the determination of what constitutes a
"major change".

Since the insurance language used in this article matches the wording in my
AVEMCO policy, I must assume that AVEMCO could try to use such an argument to
void my insurance should some misfortune befall N92EX.

In the spirit of the educational nature of Experimental - Amateur-Built
Aircraft and, as both the builder (manufacturer) and Certificated Repairman
(No. 2544771) of N92EX, I have made repairs, adjustments, modifications and
alterations subsequent to the date of the airworthiness certificate.  The
weight and balance was revised as necessary and I have certified that the
aircraft was "in a condition safe for flight" in the appropriate logs as
required by the FARs.  

I believe all of the following logged alterations constitute "minor changes"
as defined by FAR 21.93 ("A 'minor change' is one that has no appreciable
effect on weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational
characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the
product."):
 Item      Log Date	Change
1.	7-27-96		Installation of Hobbs meter;
2.	9-6-96		Installation of aircraft interior;
3.	1-18-97		Installed engine compartment components of the "cabin heat"
system, 
4.	1-18-97		Elevator trim adjustment system replaced with geared wheel system,
5.	1-18-97		Aileron electric-servo spring-bias trim system replaced
experimental
 "wing-tip" trim system;
6.	6-14-97		Removed RNAV Loran, Installed Garmin 155 GPS,
7.	6-14-97		ACK30 Encoder removed, RMI encoder re-connected, 
8.	6-14-97		Brake cylinders replaced and fluid reservoir added, 
9.	6-14-97		Alternate static air valve installed, 
10.	6-14-97		Rudder electric-servo spring-bias trim system added, 
11.	6-14-97		GPS/NAV switches replaced with "Approach" switch/light
annunciation
 system;
12.	10-24-97	Aircraft disassembled, painted, re-assembled, control surfaces
balanced, 
13.	10-24-97	New propeller (same type) installed; and
14.	8-15-98		Static system removed from pitot/static tube and relocated to
fuselage
 sides, 
15.	8-15-98		Electronic compass installed and connected to RMI encoder.

Item	Additional Details
2 The planned interior added less than 2% to the empty weight.  The CG was
favorably moved slightly rearward since, under certain conditions, the prior
CG was too far forward.
3 The cabin heat system had been partially installed prior to certification.
Its' completion included the fresh air scat tube, heat muff on exhaust pipe
and scat tube to cabin heat valve.  
4 The original system was controlled by a lever held in place with friction
and was difficult to "fine tune" the trim.  A geared "trim wheel" system (with
a trim position indicator) was installed in its' place.  The small weight
change was on the CG and no changes to the operational characteristics.
5 The original experimental trim system failed to provide sufficient trim.
The wing tip was restored and the servo was moved to the central main spar to
control a "spring bias" system.  Using the same switches and position lights
resulted in no real operational changes.
8	The brake system was revised to make pre-flight checks and servicing more
convenient.
10 A "spring bias" rudder trim system was added with only a small affect on
cruise trim.  A
few ounces, added in the rear fuselage, had no appreciable effect on W&B.
12    	The aircraft was tested in primer.  Weight increase due to painting was
less than 1%, the
aircraft was re-weighed and a new W&B computed.
14	The static system was moved to eliminate errors in the prior pitot-located
system.

These changes have had "no appreciable effect on weight, balance, structural
strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics
affecting the airworthiness of the product".

Please provide me with confirmation from the FAA, in writing, that none of
these modifications constitute a "major change" or would require the
recertification of N92EX.

Sincerely,
ЕЕ..

THE FAA REPLY:
August 31, 1998

Е.

This replies to your information submitted on August 24,1998, requesting
confirmation that none of the changes you incorporated in your aircraft,
N92EX, constitute a "major change" as defined in Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 21 з21.93(a).

We have reviewed the data presented in your letter and consider that the
changes indicated are satisfactory and do not constitute a major change.  The
aircraft would not have been recertified, if the change was significant enough
it would have been placed back in a test flight box for 5 or 10 hrs to prove
your changes, which would have constituted an amended airworthiness
certificate.  Since this is an amateur-built experimental aircraft, you would
not receive a FAA Form 337 as is usual for a type certificate.  This type of
letter is used in place of a form 337.  Please make a log book entry to record
this change and maintain this letter with your aircraft records.

If you have any questions, please call me at Е

Е
Aviation Safety Inspector (Mfg.)
CHI-MISO-CE

DID YOU Е ?:
Did you read these letters carefully?  Did you dig out the Sport Aviation
article and read it?  Did you read your Certificate limitations?  Did you
check your insurance policy?  Did you notice that, in this case, "Hi, I'm from
the FAA and I'm here to help you" was, actually, helpful? 
Did you? Huh? Huh?

TO LOG OR NOT TO LOG, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
In the Sport Aviation article, the aircraft had received modifications to its
fuel system which, at the time of the crash, had been returned to its original
state.  How did the insurance company learn of the changes?  Non-loggers would
claim it wasn't from his aircraft logs, but the article is silent on that.  I
would guess that the accident investigators found evidence in the aircraft
wreckage that modifications had been made.  

The same thing could happen in any accident where the investigation uncovers
some modification or service containing a part that didn't exist at the time
the airplane was certified. Such as new landing gear components, new style
engine shock mounts, electronic compass, AOA Indicator, etc.  There are no
secrets.  Not logging alterations is a form of denial - seek professional
help!  

Log all modifications, alterations, inspections, equipment upgrades, new
paint, new W&B sheets, etc.  If you don't log, the FAA could cite you for
violation of FAR 91.405(b), 91.407(b) or 91.417(a).  The penalty for this is a
trip to the FAA logging boot camp.  If you feel a modification is in a gray
area relative to its' significance, write to the FAA.  Don't let a judge
determine whether some change is major or minor.  Protect your insurance (if
you still have any).

Scott Krueger
N92EX
Sky2high@aol.com
630-655-4811