F

floydpackard

Member
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
SteinAir said:
Anyway, it's not entirely cut/dried,
Cheers,
Stein
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Ironflight said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
SteinAir said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
I agree with Paul you will do that much testing anyway so I would do the panel how you want and include a log book entry that you did the 5 hrs of flight testiing and are in compliance with your original ops limitations.

I would not discuss it with a FSDO.
 
I went ahead and called the FSDO in Spokane. Nice guy. I explained what I wanted to do he said he would research it and give a call. John, a person above him in the FAA called back. He explained that as a certified plane they would do a STC and call it good and not put it back into testing. He had me read him my operation limitations. I explained that I would be doing testing but that I would appreciate an observer to help and that would not be allowed under phase 1 testing. He agreed and said it was a grey area open to interpretation and that I could determine if it was major or minor, make the log book entry and go fly. He did not feel it would effect the operating characteristics in a major way even with an autopilot. He also explained that they are not looking to come after us on those things and it is up to us. Ill take it for that and go with it.
Thanks for your input
Floyd
 
floydpackard said:
I went ahead and called the FSDO in Spokane. Nice guy. I explained what I wanted to do he said he would research it and give a call. John, a person above him in the FAA called back. He explained that as a certified plane they would do a STC and call it good and not put it back into testing. He had me read him my operation limitations. I explained that I would be doing testing but that I would appreciate an observer to help and that would not be allowed under phase 1 testing. He agreed and said it was a grey area open to interpretation and that I could determine if it was major or minor, make the log book entry and go fly. He did not feel it would effect the operating characteristics in a major way even with an autopilot. He also explained that they are not looking to come after us on those things and it is up to us. Ill take it for that and go with it.
Thanks for your input
Floyd
Click to expand...

Glad to hear you had the same experience I generally have. There really is a lot of sensible people in the FAA (and some others also :D)
 
We are really concerned about major modifications that could affect the flying characteristics of the airplane, hence aircraft structure, control surfaces, engines, and props are all considered major changes. Instrument Panels would be considered cosmetic, unless of course the new panel required rerouting of control linkages, as an example. Then flight testing back in Phase I would be required and prudent. Don't confuse our Experiementals with Type-certificated airplanes that need to remain in the original configuration, or can be altered through the use of 337's or STC's.
Remember, the orginal goal of the FAA is to protect the flying public. That's why we need to fly for a certain amount of time to prove that the aircraft is airworthy and has no adverse characteristics.

Vic
 
Hi Floyd,

How's it going? Post or send me some pics of your new panel. Have fun doing the IFR ticket. Mike mentioned that you were upgrading the panel.

I just ordered a model to be made of Oliver III.

Roberta
 
Don't forget about what your insurance company might say if you have an accident! They won't pay at all if they feel the change you made to the panel should have been reported to the FAA. I agree that it probably shouldn't be considered a major change, but whytake the risk that your insurance company will feel otherwise and not pay up?
 
I think we all overstate what the insurance company will say or do in the event of an accident relative to logbook entries, changes, alteration, and maintenance issues.

After my accident I have talked to many others who have had accidents and our experiences were similar.

They did not do a page by page review of the logbooks (nor did the FAA).

They wanted a copy of pilot certs, current medical, registratiion, auirworthiness certificate, and enough pilot logbook copies to ascertain currency. Also copies out of the aircraft and engine logs for the last condition inspection.


There have been numerous case where courts have not allowed insurance companies to avoid payment based on technicalities such as expired medical if the pilots medical condition had nothing to do with the accident. They are, after all, insuring experimental aircraft. We pay a premium for the word experimental.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.