What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

"Major Changes" re: follow-up to: FAA says I can't do maintenance, etc

P

posterman

Active Member
Ok, so I got put up to posting this by one of our local well respected and multiple RV builders on the field - but the following I think is an interesting question as a followup to the "FAA says I can't do maintenance" thread.

Now that we seem to have covered maintenance and repair for experimentals how about ?major changes? and how do we properly deal with them? At what point does a change to our RV's become ?major?? What is the definition of major change in the reg's for experimentals and with what kind of change are we required to put our aircraft back to phase 1 for 5 hours of test flights with a subsequent phase 2 log entry? I am told any changes affecting ?safety? requires a phase 1 log entry and 5 hours of flight testing. What might qualify as a ?major change?? New engine? New propeller? New engine driven or electric fuel pump? How about a replaced canopy latch for a slider or a replacement flap motor assembly?

Without regard to the Varieze that went into the transformer unit years ago insured by Avemco with the denied claim due to a new engine driven fuel pump installed, subsequently removed, but not put back into phase 1, what are the current thoughts about how we should be defining ?major changes? to our already flying RV's?
 
Read your operating limitations.

Paragraph "(19) After incorporating a major change as described in 14 CFR 21.93,....."

A major change to an experimental aircraft is the same as for a certified aircraft.
And yes, anyone can do it. Basically it involves anything that significantly changes the W&B, anything that involves changes to or interconnection with the control systems, and anything that affects the flight characteristics of the aircraft.

WITH regards to the Varieze that was denied coverage. In those "olden days", a major change required a new airworthiness inspection. The owner was not allowed to place the aircraft back into phase I. Once the aircraft was flown in it's modified form, the airworthiness certificate became invalid. And returning the aircraft to the original configuration did NOT automatically re-validate the Airworthiness Certificate.
 
Last edited:
And just to clarify, a change to a new part that is the same as the one being replaced is not a major change in this context. A major change that requires testing in phase 1 is a change that changed from the original configuration.
 
As I've understood the FAA rules on this, if you change your plane from it's configuration when it was certified Special you are supposed to go back to phase 1. Like changing the prop to a different make or model, changing your engine to a different make or model, landing gear reconfiguration, control surface modifications, etc. This does not include changing an old part for a same new part, like a fuel pump, Heim joint, control cable, etc. As with all aircraft a new weight and balance is needed but log book entries are not required for experimental aircraft, only conditional inspections are required log entries. Anyone can do work on an experimental but any part that is certified like an engine or prop is still subject to certified FAA rules. All AD's must complied with. It gets a bit sketchy with an experimental airframe bolted to a certified engine and prop and what people do.
 
"...As with all aircraft a new weight and balance is needed but log book entries are not required for experimental aircraft, only conditional inspections are required log entries..."

This may be in conflict with FAR 91.417, which homebuilts are not exempt from.

I have asked the EAA Experimenter to clarify their web site statement on logging of homebuilt maintenance 7 months ago, with 3 or 4 follow-ups. Their initial response was "I'll check" - since then the response has been zero - very disappointing.
 
Like Mel says:

Check your Operating Limitations

Paragraph 9.
Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records.

I believe this would apply to: ELT's, Transponder's, and 24 month IFR checks if so equipped, etc.
 
barryrv10 said:
Check your Operating Limitations

Paragraph 9.
Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records.

I believe this would apply to: ELT's, Transponder's, and 24 month IFR checks if so equipped, etc.
Click to expand...

OK, so where is the Experimental exception written for 91.417??

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...3.10.5&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML#14:2.0.1.3.10.5.7.10
 
I have discussed this with the Van Nuys FSDO, since I'm an A&P and do conditional inspections. They did confirm that log books for experimental aircraft are not required to log anything other then inspections. As you know a conditional inspection does cover the ELT. A pitot static is an inspection. Of of course, if you have a certified part (engine / prop) this would not be experimental. Understandably you would have to log AD's and maintenance. Most of us log maintenance, repairs, mods, etc because it's smart to have your history and buyers don't like empty log books but it is not required for experimental. On the same note: A pilot is not required to log anything other then biannual's or ratings in his / her log book.
 
Hi Gil,
I believe that 91.417 does apply to any maintenance and inspections required by the operating limitations for the aircraft
 
FasGlas said:
I have discussed this with the Van Nuys FSDO, since I'm an A&P and do conditional inspections. They did confirm that log books for experimental aircraft are not required to log anything other then inspections. As you know a conditional inspection does cover the ELT. A pitot static is an inspection. Of of course, if you have a certified part (engine / prop) this would not be experimental. Understandably you would have to log AD's and maintenance. Most of us log maintenance, repairs, mods, etc because it's smart to have your history and buyers don't like empty log books but it is not required for experimental. On the same note: A pilot is not required to log anything other then biannual's or ratings in his / her log book.
Click to expand...

Again, often each FSDO gives different answers to the same question. :)

Did they point to any regulatory words for their opinion?

The pilot log book is a bad example - 61.51 is very specific on it use -

(a) Training time and aeronautical experience.
Each person must document
and record the following time in a
manner acceptable to the Administrator:
(1) Training and aeronautical experience
used to meet the requirements for
a certificate, rating, or flight review of
this part.


I see no equivalent specific use (or non-use) for the FAR 91.417


Again, I would expect the EAA to justify their web page comments with a lawerly answer. I expect that to be one of their membership support functions.
 
barryrv10 said:
Hi Gil,
I believe that 91.417 does apply to any maintenance and inspections required by the operating limitations for the aircraft
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that though....:)

Here is the applicability bit of Subpart E that covers maintenance -

(a) This subpart prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations of U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating within or outside of the United States.

The exceptions seem to be for Part 125 aircraft. Experimentals are still "U.S.-registered civil aircraft"

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...fe55ba89b&n=14y2.0.1.3.10.5&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML
 
You are certainly welcome to ask your local FSDO but Van Nuys does have a reputation of being one of the toughest. I don't think the EAA trumps and FAA. I sat face to face with two FAA officials at the Van Nuys FSDO. The information I have posted is directly from them. Bare in mind that there is no type certificate for YOUR aircraft, each one is built by a different builder and a special airworthy certificate is issued for each individual aircraft. There are no FAA issued AD's for YOUR aircraft, there are no factory maintenance procedures for YOUR aircraft, etc, etc. You generate all this for YOUR individual aircraft. You are required to carry a POH, W&B and reg. Each aircraft different as per the builder. Experimental is not Standard.
 
I think Mel nailed the "major change" issue in post #2. This is one of the more unambiguous directives in the E-AB world.

However, it looks like this thread is now going down the familiar AD/TSO/logbook entry rathole we always do. Might I suggest we simply provide links to the many epic threads that already exist on the subject? Pretty sure there is no new wisdom from either side to share.
 
FasGlas said:
You are certainly welcome to ask your local FSDO but Van Nuys does have a reputation of being one of the toughest...
Click to expand...

That's putting it very politely...

The real word is "notorious". Van Nuys FSDO is known to have outright contempt for E-AB and should be avoided at all costs. Their "knowledge" on any subject concerning E-AB should be taken with a whole truckload of salt.
 
POH

I would like someone with more knowledge than me to address the statement above but im pretty sure EAB like RV's are not required to carry a POH.
 
Toobuilder said:
That's putting it very politely...

The real word is "notorious". Van Nuys FSDO is known to have outright contempt for E-AB and should be avoided at all costs.
Click to expand...

If they had their way you wouldn't see any experimental around here. A few years back there was a circular about populated areas and experimental aircraft. How "it was not legal for us to fly over populated areas but the FAA never enforced this rule." There were some rumors that the Van Nuys FSDO was going to evict us all from Los Angeles. Then it went quiet. Maybe they didn't want all the law suits or maybe it was just a show of force. Don't know.
 
POH

POH is not required for EAB. This has never been an issue until the NTSB went on their ridiculous tirade about EAB safety record.
OMG I'm in a spin, I've never done a spin before, but if I can just find that POH I'm sure it will save me.
The FAA/DAR WILL require permanent markings, placards, documents that will be used in place of POH. Basically similar to J3 Cub etc that had a single sheet of paper plus placards and markings.
Weight and Balance documentation is required of course.
 
FAA

Its not just Van Nuys. Riverside FSDO made me show up in person to pick up a ferry permit for a Twin Cessna gear down ferry. They flatly refused to Fax it or mail it. Absolute arrogance.
Many years ago there was a gentleman in the Van Nuys FSDO who commuted daily from Santa Paula in a Cosmic Wind midget racer. I think he was the FSDO Manager.
So different today, its like we were all transported to a different solar system.
 
AD's

If the engine is a certified engine when you install it and you maintain and operate it to certified standards, then the AD MAY apply. If you have a Lycoming based engine that has no data plate or has a data plate that says xxx IO 320 xxx, it is no longer a certified engine and there is no requirement to comply with AD's.
Lets say you have a Lycoming based engine with custom, non certificated pistons. Lycoming comes out with an AD on pistons that covers virtually every Lycoming four cylinder engine. Would you have to comply with the AD. Certainly not, for many reasons, perhaps the most important being that your engine is an XX, not found on the list of model numbers on the AD.
So to remove any issues, get rid of the engine data plate completely or replace it with a data plate calling it something other than Lycoming.
 
jrs14855 said:
If the engine is a certified engine when you install it and you maintain and operate it to certified standards, then the AD MAY apply. If you have a Lycoming based engine that has no data plate or has a data plate that says xxx IO 320 xxx, it is no longer a certified engine and there is no requirement to comply with AD's.
Lets say you have a Lycoming based engine with custom, non certificated pistons. Lycoming comes out with an AD on pistons that covers virtually every Lycoming four cylinder engine. Would you have to comply with the AD. Certainly not, for many reasons, perhaps the most important being that your engine is an XX, not found on the list of model numbers on the AD.
So to remove any issues, get rid of the engine data plate completely or replace it with a data plate calling it something other than Lycoming.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're absolutely right. It's all in the data plate. If it's on the engine then it's considered certified and all AD's are required. If you remove it or change it to EXP (for example) then it's not subject to AD's, same with a prop. If you have the Hartzell compact hub with the Replace / Eddy Current AD on it that only applies to certified hubs.
If I'm asked to do a condition inspection and the engine has the original data plate but I see P-Mags (for example), I'll give the owner two choices. Remove / change the data plate or put the engine back to stock and do an AD search. You'll see engine builders stamp EXPERIMENTAL on the data plate if they build a modified engine.
 
1999-2000 change to operating limitations.

FasGlas said:
If they had their way you wouldn't see any experimental around here. A few years back there was a circular about populated areas and experimental aircraft. How "it was not legal for us to fly over populated areas but the FAA never enforced this rule." There were some rumors that the Van Nuys FSDO was going to evict us all from Los Angeles. Then it went quiet. Maybe they didn't want all the law suits or maybe it was just a show of force. Don't know.
Click to expand...

I don't have the exact dates but my records show that prior to 2000, the operating limitations stated that "This aircraft may not be flown in congested airways or over densely populated areas."

Sometime early in 2000, the op lims were changed to add the sentence; "After the satisfactory completion of phase I, and the appropriate endorsement has been entered in the aircraft logbook, this aircraft may be flown in congested airways and over densely populated areas if directed by Air Traffic Control or sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on the surface."

This information is from FAA Order 8130.2, not a local FSDO.
 
Last edited:
FasGlas said:
As I've understood the FAA rules on this, if you change your plane from it's configuration when it was certified Special you are supposed to go back to phase 1. Like changing the prop to a different make or model, changing your engine to a different make or model, landing gear reconfiguration, control surface modifications, etc. This does not include changing an old part for a same new part, like a fuel pump, Heim joint, control cable, etc. As with all aircraft a new weight and balance is needed but log book entries are not required for experimental aircraft, only conditional inspections are required log entries. Anyone can do work on an experimental but any part that is certified like an engine or prop is still subject to certified FAA rules. All AD's must complied with. It gets a bit sketchy with an experimental airframe bolted to a certified engine and prop and what people do.
Click to expand...

How would it be handled if the engine is say changed from one manufacturer to another but remains the same configuration? For example : remove Lycoming IO-360 parellel valve, vertical sump..... install: Contenental Motors Titan (ECI) IO-360 parellel valve, vertical sump.....
 
I did this last year with the Sportsman. We changed from a Suburu conversion to an IO-375 with a WhirlWind Constant Speed propeller. Since the engine type (reciprocating) didn't change and the propeller type (cockpit controllable) didn't change I did not have to file a new 8130-6 I only needed to put the airplane back in phase 1 for 5 hours and get FSDO concurrence on my flight test area, which I received with no problems. After 5 hours a log book entry put it back in phase II.
 
ArlingtonRV said:
I did this last year with the Sportsman. We changed from a Suburu conversion to an IO-375 with a WhirlWind Constant Speed propeller. Since the engine type (reciprocating) didn't change and the propeller type (cockpit controllable) didn't change I did not have to file a new 8130-6 I only needed to put the airplane back in phase 1 for 5 hours and get FSDO concurrence on my flight test area, which I received with no problems. After 5 hours a log book entry put it back in phase II.
Click to expand...

This is proper procedure.
 
I am not trying to be contentious but please consider the example you gave is not the same as the question I have.

In the case I stated. Would it not be considers a repair? In reality you are replacing parts. If you change from Lycoming to ECI pistons in the same engine with the same compression you would never put it into phase I would you? I am not against PH I testing when it can be done ones self but when the operating limitations say you have to contact the FAA it gets problematic when the Local FISDO will not even give you a Ph I area testing because they feel its a minor change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top