Panel upgrade trigger FAR 21.93?

[floydpackard]

I am in the middle of making the panel IFR in my RV7a. I am planning on using stein or aerotronics. Gary at aerotonics has a question if this would be a major modification and trigger a 5hr test flight requirement. He talked to someone at EAA who is reported to know these things and he felt it would. I am not so sure in reading 21.93. As mentioned here on other threads (ie black magic) it includes things that have significant changes in weight and balance, operating and so forth. I am not sure that a complete new panel would constitute a major modification as defined in 21.93. My operating Limitations do have the paragraph on major modifications as per 21.93 require a 5hr test flight.
I am doing the following. I will be replacing a six pack with a moving map gps VFR/night panel with..
Glass panel
430W
autopilot
audio panel
heated pitot

No changes being made to engine, or propeller

What are your thoughts, does this trigger FAR 21.93?

Thanks
Floyd

[N941WR]

Floyd,

Call your local FISDO and ask them for their opinion. After all, they are the ones who will most likely push the issue, if it is considered a major modification.

[170 driver]

FAR 43 appendix A has a list of what is considered major. Maybe this will help.

[SteinAir]

First, 21.93 applies to TC'd airplanes and applies to changes in the Type Certificate. Second, Small W&B changes in themself do not require a renewed phase one test period - but of course an entry in the log and W&B with the new calculations. Only things that materially change the structure of the plane, or substantially alter the flight characteristics, or completely different engine/prop, etc.. will typically trigger that. The answers from the FSDO's are going to be almost worthless, as you're likely to get 15 different answers from 15 different people at differing FSDO's.

This FAR as listed is not what you'd use as a reference anyway. Your reference will come from your Op/Lims in this case. Some Op/Lims will spell out major/minor items. FYI...the terms "major and minor" don't apply to us exactly in the same way they do with cert'd airplanes. We don't use 337's, etc.. for repairs or alterations.

Anyway, it's not entirely cut/dried, but unless you drastically change the structure around/behind the panel, there is no reason to put the plane back into phase one. Re-calculate any large W&B items, enter them into your paperwork and go fly! Gary (he's a great guy and a friend of mine) and I have both done LOTS of panel retrofits...the difference is I've built, flown, and "modified" my own RV's and I can't think of anything in a typical RV retrofit that would come close to triggering that - especially this particular FAR.

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein

[floydpackard]

Thanks Stein,
That is what I thought. My Operational Limitations state "After incorporating a major change as described in FAR 21.93 the aircraft owner is required to re-establish compliance withFAR 91.319(b). The aircraft must remain in flight test for a minimum of 5 hours."

I don't mind doing flight testing and would do it anyway. I would just like to carry another person who knows how to operate the new avionics and can help instruct me.
Thanks
Floyd

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by SteinAir

Anyway, it's not entirely cut/dried,
Cheers,
Stein

I mostly agree with Stein, particularly the part about asking 15 different FAA officials and getting 15 different responses.
The main point though, is that what ever your local FSDO office personnel thinks is what counts .
Many times they do refer to the FAR's for the definition of major versus minor change since the operating limitations don't usually spell it out in detail. Even though we do not have a standard category certificated aircraft, the thought is that the intent of major Vs. minor modification would be the same regardless of whether it is certificated or not.
The FAR's refer to a major change as anything which could effect the flight characteristics or operational reliability would being considered a major change. To some FAA personnel, the second point would make your mod. a major change.

§ 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.

(a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. 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” (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section).

Best thing to do is just ask (all you need is one person in your local office to respond to your E-mail and say it is not a major change and you are good to go). Tell them the panel was built by a professional shop. Most likely the will say minor change, go fly, but if not, 5 hours is not a big deal and then you will never have anyone able to make an issue of it.

[Ironflight]

Another way to look at this....

The FAA has virtually no record, or interest in the panel configuration of your experimental. They don't know what was in there, what is in there, or what will be in there. Why create a potential paperwork/regulatory issue for yourself when you don't need to? Of course you're going to do testing - believe me, it will take more than 5 hours to get used to a TAA if you haven't had one before, and it is highly advisable to have an observer with you to keep their eyes outside while you play with the new goodies. As long as you don't change the flight characteristics of the aircraft (and it is very hard to do change the W&B with a panel change), why invite scrutiny where it isn't required?

There is NO incentive for a FSDO person to be be permissive or say yes to any question - the FAA is not responsive to us as "customers" in general, so why risk getting an answer that you don't want (in writing)?

Just my VERY opiniated thoughts....

Paul

[pierre smith]

.....what Paul said,

Regards,

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

There is NO incentive for a FSDO person to be be permissive or say yes to any question - the FAA is not responsive to us as "customers" in general, so why risk getting an answer that you don't want (in writing)?

Paul

This shows how much variation there is between different regions.
I work with our local FAA guys on a regular basis with regulatory and recertification issues of 10 experimental category aircraft that I maintain.
I have been told many times "not a major change, just make a log book entry, go fly"

My attitude is to always error on the conservative side...we all need to do our part in avoiding additional rules. I think we can all agree that the way the government deals with braking or cheating on the rules is to make more rules.
We see that process in the works right now with the amateur built certification rule changes that look like will be happening.

[the_other_dougreeves]

Originally Posted by SteinAir

The answers from the FSDO's are going to be almost worthless, as you're likely to get 15 different answers from 15 different people at differing FSDO's.

If the FAA is anything like the EPA or OSHA, and my experience suggests "yes", I would add that each answer that a FSDO gives you will not always be recognized by the 14 other FSDOs, particularly if they disagree. And if the Feds have decided to bust you, the decision by any other FSDO - even if it's in writing - is only worth the paper it's written on. My previous employer has the seven-figure canceled check to prove it.

Unfortunately, in today's climate (e.g., FAA encouraging controllers to violate pilots more often), it's best not to ask unless you're really uncertain. I think the rules are clear enough here that you can make a reasonable interpretation that Phase I test is not required. Keep proper documentation and be ye not troubled.

TODR