[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list]
My feeling about the denied insurance coverage is that the bad guy in
the story is the insurance company, not the FAA.  My experience with the
FAA is that if one communicates with them over a change to an amateur
built aircraft, their workload gives them plenty of incentive to deal
with it along the path of least resistance.  They are usually willing to
be quite liberal about what constitutes a minor or major change as long
as there is no currently pending accident related to the change.  The
problem is that the insurance company has plenty of incentive to be very
picky and their incentive increases with the size of the claim.   In the
future when I make any changes to N17BE I intend to write the following
letter to the FAA.

Dear Sir

As the builder and authorized repairman of amateur built aircraft N17BE
I have replaced the wood propeller manufacture by Bernard Warnke, with a
wood propeller manufactured by Bruce Tift.  The replacement propeller is
the same diameter and pitch as the replaced propeller.

Because I consider this change to be a minor change as defined in FAR
??.?? I will continue to operate the aircraft under the authority of the
special airworthiness certificate and attached operating limitations
issued 8/17/87.
If you feel that this interpretation of FAR ??.??  is in error and that
the described change actually constitutes a major change, please advise
by return mail or telephone.

Yours truly,
Ben Ellison
(425) 271-3220
 

In comparing the NTSB report relating to Davenport's Long EZ accident,
with the facts outlined in the court decision, there seems to be some
interesting inconsistencies.  I would much appreciate somebody putting
me in touch with Mr. William Davenport to get his side of this story.

Ben Ellison
 

This page was created by Kevin.