Service Alert

[Delta Whisky]

Combining Jeff's input with Paupa's - we build these planes and obtain and maintain an AW cert by following the rules. One of the rules in our experimental airworthiness certificate says that 14CFR 21.93 applies (in mine it is in para 14). So, if one were to add anything in hopes that it would alter a flight characteristic(s), putting the plane back into phase one and performing and documenting the required tests should put you back in exactly the same certification/legal position you were before the mod - wouldn't it? To me it boils down to: any and all changes made during construction were incorporated in the EXP AW certificate (phase 1, et al) and any changes made later maintain the same level of authorization if they are made IAW the rules.

[109JB]

Valid, but it depends on your operating limitations. For example, my Sonerai, which got its airworthiness in 1992, says nothing about notifying the FAA after major repairs, alterations, changes in flight characteristics, etc. It also says nothing about FAR 21.93. Likewise, the Kitfox 4 1050 that I previously owned also had op lims that said nothing about major repairs, alterations, or modification of flight characteristics. Those op lims got superceded when I applied to change the n-number, which required a new airworthiness.

Not that it isn't a smart thing to do flight testing after a potential change, but not all airplanes require notification of the FAA for something like adding vortex generators.

[alexM]

I think this bulletin is aimed less at VGs and post build modifications, and more aimed at modifications like the Snake River Bushplanes "piggyback ribs", slats, etc.

Those changes definitely affect the flight characteristics. From a product liability standpoint I don't blame the factory at all for distancing themselves from mods like those.

The only way they could stand behind aftermarket modifications like that is to test/evaluate at their own expense, and why would they? They already offer a proven product with two different airfoil choices.

[jmodguy]

I asked my FSDO rep about mods that would require a return to phase 1 and was told there are 2 things that will drive a return to phase 1 and notification of FSDO. These are a fixed pitch to constant speed prop, and a swap from piston to turbine engine.
That said-
We know all FSDOs interpret the rules exactly the same too... right!?

[airlina]

When I added Skis to my Series 5, the local FSDO came to the hangar (2 hour drive) for an inspection ( the guy didn't have a clue about ski installation and to be honest I think they just need to get out of the office so any excuse will do) and put me back into a 5 hour test phase .

[jmodguy]

When I added Skis to my Series 5, the local FSDO came to the hangar (2 hour drive) for an inspection ( the guy didn't have a clue about ski installation and to be honest I think they just need to get out of the office so any excuse will do) and put me back into a 5 hour test phase .

I know airlina! And back to my comment on FSDOs and interpretation! It's almost like a crap shoot as to what response you may get.

Anyone know what drove John to post this? I don't do youtube and am a little leery of the danger guys. That kind of stuff is what kills us on insurance rates.

[avidflyer]

Funny thing about the skis being considered a major change. When we first got our Aeronca Chief, because it had never been on skis before, we had to have the AnP do the first install and do a weight and balance for it. After that, the owner can change back and forth between wheels and skis with a log book entry. And that's on a certified plane which is far more restrictive then an experimental. Maybe the FAA guy was wanting to take a look at a Kitfox and get out of the office as well. Actually since about 1990 or so, major changes didn't require the FAA to inspect the aircraft like it did previous to that time. Would be interesting to know what the FAA guy was really thinking. JImChuk

[airlina]

Jim, Apparently not much. He was the same guy who came out with an FAA gal to do my airworthiness initial inspection. I wanted them to give the plane a good going over , but that was not to be as they were more concerned that my paperwork was correct and thats where the majority of the time was spent. Turns out after the guy did my ski inspection , he was leaving my house and wrecked and totaled the FAA's car on my 1/2 mile long private driveway by driving so fast (its a 15 MPH road) he couldn't make a turn went into the woods and tore the bottom out on stumps. I had to drive him back to the FSDO office, but it was worth it to see what he had to go thru from the rest of the office staff when we went inside. They nicknamed him Stumpy. Bruce N199CL

[jmodguy]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

[Delta Whisky]

Jeff - there is a chance the FSDO gent misunderstood the question - he might have been thinking "What alteration on an experimental requires a 8130-6?". For that his answer is correct.