<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
I have been out of touch for several days teaching the
EAA SportAir Lancair assembly course (with Brad
Simmons) at Oshkosh. Catching up with the news on the
list I find several issues that I may be able to shed
some light on.
1)Data plates- I attended a DAR refresher clinic last
month and the instructor made a very pointed statement
that quoted the regulation FAR 45.13
(b) "No person may remove------ (engine data
plates)--- without the approval Of the Administrator".
He made the point to me, that an amateur builder did
not have the authority to remove the data plates from
engines, props, etc. etc. without a letter from the
administrator-- or his/her representative. A proposal
is in the works to instruct/permit an amateur builder
to stamp a "E" on the data plates-- but it's not
official yet.
The issue of AD's it is hotly debated.  The FAA's AC
39-7C is in conflict with George McNeil, FAA
Airworthiness Certification Division, and the
Experimental Aircraft Associations position.
Noncompliance with an AD would NOT void an AVEMCO
policy.
A full discussion is on the EAA/government issues Web
page.
(http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/airworthy.html)
2) Re; flight training while the aircraft is in the
phase one flight testing area.
Brent Regan is right when he states "as PIC, you get
to decide what is" necessary", not the FSDO." Yes,
there's always the possibility that an over zealous
Aviation Safety Inspector may cite you under "careless
and reckless" (91.13) operation----. But if this were
to happen, it would probably be a convenience issue
but in actuality based upon other factors
(violations-arguing).  
I requested and received a letter from the EAA, which
is signed by Earl Lawrence, which says their position
is that "the EAA discourages anyone from receiving
flight training during the flight test phase of its
operating limitations." While allowing it is not a
black and white issue he also makes the statement that
"the FAA has allowed some dual flight after the
initial flight tests have been completed as long as
the additional pilot is being as required for the
flight".
In summary, I do not believe that the FAA would ever
pursue an enforcement action against a properly
certified flight instructor giving instruction in an
aircraft that was operating within the scope of its
Operating Limitations and in compliance with Part 91
during the Phase One flight test period. The PIC
decides "necessary" and "purpose of flight".
The issue of insurance is a moot point.  Most
insurance companies do not cover the first 10 hours.
Those that do cover during that period-- have never
issued a restriction against flight training.
3) DAR's--- A key issue Mike brings out the
responsibility DAR has to his local FSDO, and his
personal Aviation Safety Inspector representative.
Mine is sympathetic to the requirements of the LIV-P
and will let me go anywhere in the U.S. (and overseas)
to certify. The Continental-Lycoming with Hartzel/MT
has been accepted as a 25-hour combination and 100NM
radius as reasonable (150NM with turbine).  



=====
Charlie Kohler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>