C

Captain Avgas

Well Known Member
The following court case will be of interest to any RV builders who plan on "tinkering" or otherwise modifying their aircraft systems after the C of A is issued.

http://www.ellison-fluid-systems.com/homebuilt_court_decision.htm

The case pertains to a Long EZ but will be relevant to all RV builders. In the relevant case the insurance company (Avemco) denied any indemnity under the aircraft insurance policy following a crash. This had ramifications for the pilot/owner, not only resulting from damage to the aircraft but also resulting from a third party claim for damage to property on the ground.

The pilot/owner lost the court case AND a subsequent appeal. It would be a fair assumption that if legal costs for the case and the appeal were awarded against the pilot/owner then these costs might have greatly exceeded the value of his aircraft.

My apologies if this case has been previously raised on VansAirforce.
 
Last edited:
Follow your operating limitations!

It is important to note here that the insurance denial was not because of the modification but because the aircraft did not hold a valid airworthiness certificate.
You MUST follow your operating limitations. The op lims stated that after any mod, you must notify the FSDO. The owner did not. At that point his airworthiness certificate became invalid. Even though he changed the aircraft back to the original configuration, that did not reinstate the A/W.
 
Last edited:
It is quite interesting how the court focused on "need to notify the FAA" and totally ignored the fact that at the time of the crash the fuel system was in it's "as designed" configuration.

Thats like saying because he jaywalked as a youth he is not entitled to insurance coverage.

This case makes a good case for not making logbook entries and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of aircraft and their systems by non builders/pilots.
 
This case has been around a while. To paraphrase Mel, it really boiled down to a failure to do the paperwork. Truth is, nobody really cares about the actual mods, assuming they're not outright crazy and likely to be a danger to the public. We're experimental.

I once changed to an entirely different PSRU, certainly a major modification. Notified the local FSDO per the OpLim and got back a letter that said, in essence, "Approved, do the Phase1/Phase 2 thing, and BTW, you need not contact us again; any subsequent modification is also approved under the same conditions."

Painless.
 
Look at this..

A guy's airplane was ramp-checked during its annual inspection at my buddy's Aviation repair station and the FAA guy said he's gonna write him up for displaying the registration over the airworthiness certificate in the transparent display pouch!!!:eek: Yeah, nitpicky, buuuut, my buddy said that he'd correct that right now and "Save you a bunch of paperwork, Sir" and furthermore, tell the owner of the infraction and how to display these documents correctly in the future. He bought that but it just goes to show you.

Regards,
 
tadsargent said:
AVEMCO had better attorneys. The owner admitted too much.
Tad
Click to expand...

Seems to me anyone with an experimental aircraft that has AVEMCO insurance should be looking for another carrier. They may have been a couple of bucks cheaper, but how cheap is it now to have an insurance carrier that does not want to insurer the simplest of mods?

Vote with your feet, I did.
 
Last edited:
Avemco

Geico266 said:
Seems to me anyone with an experimental aircraft that has AVEMCO insurance should be looking for another carrier. They may have been a couple of bucks cheaper, but how cheap is it now to have an insurance carrier that does not want to insurer the simplest of mods?

Vote with your feet, I did.
Click to expand...

Up until now, I have been a long time Avemco policy holder. When I just recently called them for a quote on my RV-8, they were more than twice as high as the quote that I received from NationAir. I got the feeling that they did not really want to underwrite RV insurance. Have any of you experienced the same???
 
Props

Some years back there was a similar case but involved a guy who changed from a FP to CS prop.

His accident had nothing to do with the prop but the insurance company used it as an excuse to keep from paying.
 
Last edited:
Not universal

This is not the result you can expect from every Court. Texas, for instance appears to follow a different rule (I qualify this slightly because I haven't researched this point recently). In Texas, and in many other states, the rule appears to be that the violation of the certificate must have been a cause of the crash for the policy exclusion to be effective. This is just top of the head stuff, and is not intended to be a thorough analysis.
PUCKETT v. U.S. FIRE INSURANCE CO., 678 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.)
 
Saved My Bacon...Thank You

Thank you all for saving my bacon!!! This website has been a continuous wealth of information for me (thank you DR). There is no excuse for ignorance, however, not having been involved in the building process, I have found myself more ignorant versus knowledgeable on a variety of topics.

Not having read my Operating Limitations documents since purchasing the aircraft, I failed to note the requirement to notify the FSDO of any modifications that alters the powerplant or airframe from the original airworthiness certification. This thread was a timely wakeup call.

I added strakes to the aircraft. Since the addition of these devices modify the airflow over the wing root area, these devices could be considered a major modification. The addition of the strakes was entered in the logbook as part of a lengthy condition inspection dated May 1, 2009.

I reopened Phase I, test flew the aircraft, made the appropriate logbook entries, sent a letter to the FSDO describing the modification with photos…thanks for the save VAF!

Regards to All,
 
Last edited:
Or a good case...

N395V said:
It is quite interesting how the court focused on "need to notify the FAA" and totally ignored the fact that at the time of the crash the fuel system was in it's "as designed" configuration.

Thats like saying because he jaywalked as a youth he is not entitled to insurance coverage.

This case makes a good case for not making logbook entries and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of aircraft and their systems by non builders/pilots.
Click to expand...

...for making correct log book entries and actually reading and following your Operating Limitations....:rolleyes:

Also, remember that the FAA does not use the words "log book", they refer to it as "Maintenance Records". You can keep a separate 3 ring binder of details if you want, and make a shorter entry in that small hard-backed log book.

I do remember the crash since I lived about 2 or 3 miles away at that time. Besides being in the Kalifornia courts, the event occurred during a city effort to close the Santa Monica airport to build more houses, and got a lot of publicity.

The accident report is here....

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001207X03484&ntsbno=LAX95LA180&akey=1

The scotch brite pad in the intake system acting as an air filter....:eek:...probably didn't help the power output either.
 
Last edited:
2 cents:

Avemco was the only ins co to even quote me for my bought 4 when I had no TW experience (required 10 in a -6 and TW endorsement, as painless as any new aircraft checkout can be regarding insurance). Very greatful for that.

However, now they are over $1000 more expensive after ~100 TW hours like 1700 vs 2700. I am switching as I can't ignore economics like that regardless of my gratitude for getting me into the RV in the first place.


And the question, how big a mod requires reentering phase 1 and notifying fsdo??

I have:

1, added a new eyeball vent for the heat
2, a ram mount for 496
3, quick change oil drain
4, reiff heat
and the one that may actually matter
5, about to change out for new slick mags from the old bendix

#5 is the only one I'd consider iffy but what should I do. Just inform the fsdo of everything and make it official when 99% of the little mods get the "don't bug us" response but at least it's an official and written "don't bug us"??
 
It happened to me....

An incident in the run-up area with my C172 and Avemco insurance (7 years ago). They were great to work with and cover all repairs.

When it came time to insure my RV9A, I would have used them but they were more then $1000.00 more per year.

Kent
 
Mods

az_gila said:
The accident report is here....

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001207X03484&ntsbno=LAX95LA180&akey=1

The scotch brite pad in the intake system acting as an air filter....:eek:...probably didn't help the power output either.
Click to expand...

Wow, first flight after a major modification (a scary one at that) and flying out of an airport with no real way out. KSMO is in the middle of a heavily populated area. Oh yeah, and a low pass. Yikes!

John Clark
FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Insurance

THANKS! for the heads-up.

As a non-builder, I'll be looking over the regs carefully at my first oil-change, and mag swap etc. ( any Canucks aware of differences in our regs?)


I'll never poke fun at anyone that carries minimal insurance, it's their choice, and I think we all suspect some of the companies actions are less than admirable in event of loss...we just hope it won't happen to us!
 
My experience

I built a cargo pod for my RV-10 and neither the FAA or insurance had a problem with it. The pod is listed under "Equipment and Modifications" on my insurance application and my insurance agent didn't mind at all. After installing the pod (a major modification), I notified the local FSDO. They asked me a few questions by E-mail before instructing me to do a 5-hour fly-off and sign the log books.

They are indeed experimental aircraft. You can build a stock kit, design your own from scratch or anything in between.
 
Hmm

I might mention my non standard fuel system next time even though it was fully explained and signed off by the FSDO inspector at airworthyness time.

Frank
 
grantcarruthers said:
2 cents:

Avemco was the only ins co to even quote me for my bought 4 when I had no TW experience (required 10 in a -6 and TW endorsement, as painless as any new aircraft checkout can be regarding insurance). Very greatful for that.

/QUOTE]

I'll insure you too, if I don't have to pay out. ;)
Click to expand...
 
My DAR said that I don't have to contact the FSDO regarding modifications. He was very clear that all I needed was an entry in my logs putting the plane back into Phase I, flying off the time I determined necessary within my assigned area, and another entry putting the plane back into Phase II.

Who's right?
 
Your operating limitations should contain a paragraph that talks about incorporating a major change. The paragraph is supposed to be an explicit statement taken from FAA Order 8130.2F, section 153, paragraph (19). It should state that "...the owner is required to reestablish compliance with part 91.319(b) and notify the geographically responsible FSDO...". DARs are not allowed to change these requirements. If this statement is not in your op limits, your DAR has made a error.
 
Last edited:
My bad

I just looked over my limitations and sure enough, the language requiring FSDO contact after a major mod is right there, and in BOLD too. Specifically, they require contacting the FSDO regarding the appropriate test area and new Phase I time. Also, there is additional paperwork if changing engine type (recip to turbine - not in my short term plan) or propeller type (fixed to const. spd or back).

Not sure how my DAR got it wrong, as I questioned his guidance at the time.
Anyway, thanks once again to Mel for keeping us on the straight and narrow...
 
Follow the rules for sure but ...

Read the rules carefully for words like major and significant and comply but for goodness sake if you have the will and ability to improve and learn don't let insurance companies dictate your life into a narrow little groove of conformity.

We are squeezed into such a small corner of the original intent of the create airplanes for personal education and recreation intent of the amateur built experimental rules that the effort is viewed as tab A into slot B assembler level of effort activity - no brains required. I am sure the this is exactly where the insurance companies, the kit manufacturers, the FAA, your friends and family and the general public want you - the question that has to be asked is, is that where you want to be. For me the answer is NO!

Bob Axsom
 
frazitl said:
Not sure how my DAR got it wrong, as I questioned his guidance at the time.
Anyway, thanks once again to Mel for keeping us on the straight and narrow...
Click to expand...

This is one reason that when I do a certification, I read aloud, with the applicant, the entire op lims and have him sign that he understands them. This also checks for errors I might have made.
 
Last edited:
In answer to Flyboy's question "any Canucks aware of differences in our regs?"...

The Canadian regulations also require you to notify Transport Canada if you make a major modification to your aircraft. Last year I changed props. Called my local TC office, got ahold of the guy assigned to Rec Av (recreational aviation) and talked it over with him. By the end of the phone call we'd agreed that I would install the prop, make the appropriate logbook entries which include the term "installed in accordance with manufacturers instructions" and then conduct a climb test to prove the prop had not caused a deterioration of the aircraft's climb performance. I submitted the climb test report and that was it - all done. Totally painless.

Too many folks avoid Transport Canada like the plague. My initial experiences would confirm that Transport really doesn't want to talk to us, but the reality is that if we make a major mod, we have no option but to get their blessing.
 
Mel: how does the addition of an auto pilot factor into this discussion?

Mel said:
This is one reason that when I do a certification, I read aloud, with the applicant, the entire op lims and have him sign that he understands them. This also checks for errors I might have made.
Click to expand...

Mel: I have a specific question with auto pilot which was not referenced by my DAR. The addition of an a/p introduces servos that operate/control ailerons and elevators and could, conceivably, be blamed for an incident whether they are at fault or not.

It would seem that the addition of an a/p could be construed as a major mod. What are your thoughts?

Concerning insurance companies, they are not in the business of providing help to victims. Au contraire, they are in the business of keeping cash outlays to a min to maximize profits from premiums. Give their lawyers any excuse to reduce cash outlays, they will.

Don't ever get cancer and try to get Blue Cross to cover your expenses. Ask me how I know.
 
MrNomad said:
Mel: I have a specific question with auto pilot which was not referenced by my DAR. The addition of an a/p introduces servos that operate/control ailerons and elevators and could, conceivably, be blamed for an incident whether they are at fault or not.
It would seem that the addition of an a/p could be construed as a major mod. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, any time you are introducing something into the control system, it can affect the controllability of the aircraft and therefore should be considered a major change.
Bottom line; It's always better to test something you don't need to, as opposed to NOT testing something you should.
 
Thanks Mel.

Mel said:
In my opinion, any time you are introducing something into the control system, it can affect the controllability of the aircraft and therefore should be considered a major change.
Bottom line; It's always better to test something you don't need to, as opposed to NOT testing something you should.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mel. I will add the paperwork task to my airplane honey-do list.

I refuse to give the insurance company a way to weasel out of playing a claim.

Barry
Tucson
 
and if your op lims don't say that?

Mel said:
Your operating limitations should contain a paragraph that talks about incorporating a major change ... If this statement is not in your op limits, your DAR has made a error.
Click to expand...

Mel -- My question would be, why should the operation of my aircraft be governed by something that is in someone else's operating limitations, but not in mine?

Our RV-6 has its operating limitations on FAA FSDO letterhead, signed by a SJC FSDO Aviation Safety Inspector. It's a page and a half long, with 8 limitations. (Quick summary: 1. Operate according to part 91; 2. Placards; 3. No aerobatics unless demonstrated in Phase I; 4. Day VFR only unless appropriately equipped; 5. No compensation or hire; 6. Advise passengers about experimental; 7. Who can perform condition inspections; 8. How to record condition inspections.) Those are basically a restatement of things in FAR 91.319, which doesn't say anything about modifications. Then there is a heading, ADDITIONAL LIMITIATIONS: with nothing under it but the inspector's signature and date.

No limitation stated that I have to notify a FSDO about major modifications and re-enter Phase I. So, I can't see that I would be violating my op lims by not doing that. Why would I have to?

--Paul
 
You Are Correct!

You are bound by YOUR operating limitations. Period!
You are NOT bound by anyone else's limitations. The later operating limitations let you place the aircraft back into phase I and notify the FSDO. The older limitations force you to get another inspection after a major change.
There was a short time in which operating limitations allowed you to place the aircraft back into phase I without notifying the FSDO. If your limitations were issued at that time, you are good to go.
Bottom line; each individual aircraft is bound by IT'S operating limitations.
 
Thanks, Mel. That gives me some peace of mind. I try to do things by the book but I sure don't want to get caught in some situation like the story that started this thread. (Though I guess it's clear that case involved not following the plane's own black-and-white written operating limitations.)

By the way our op lims are dated in July 1998. Does that fit with the period of time you mention, or was what we have due to the discretion of a particular FSDO?...

--Paul
 
Yes, That date fits in. There were several years where there was not good continuity between FSDOs. I know, I know, there are still some discrepancies. Don't start another thread on that subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.