IFR, and IFR into IMC in an E-LSA

[PilotMelch]

Very interesting discussion on what constitutes a major change.

I realize the DAR is not the FSDO, but when I received my E-LSA certificate for my plane (converted from an SLSA) he asked what I intended to do now that it was an Experimental. I explained that I planned to add EFI to the engine and install a Big Bore kit and additional alternator. Then, eventually, add (legal) Night VFR equipment and eventually modify the panel to add IFR equipment. He said that NONE of that would require me to go back to the FSDO as none of that constituted a major change. I said "really?! What about the engine modification?" He said (twice, due to my incredulity) that it did not. He said if I were to change the prop to say a constant speed prop, versus the fixed pitch on there now (yeah I know I can't add a constant speed prop to an LSA (yet), he knows that too, it was just an example), that THAT would represent a major change, but just MODIFYING the existing engine does not. And adding the instrumentation (Night VFR and IFR) allowed in my OL's did not as well. He was insistent.

Note, this DAR is very experienced and has been around a long time. He has friends in the FAA and FSDO. Nevertheless, I will be contacting my local FSDO when I make the engine mods to see what they say. No disrespect to my DAR.

 

[PilotMelch]

Hey, for anyone still wondering about my wondering as to why the Dynon/Advanced guys responded in last weeks webinar to an RV-12 builder asking about equipping their RV-12 for IFR that the ONLY WAY to do it was to register it as an E-AB, I think I have things figured it out. Note, this is still just my opinion as no one has answered my direct inquiry about it thus far.

So, I participated in their second webinar last night, same gentlemen, same topics, slightly different detail on some things. They talked about the RV-12 again, but this time because apparently, they are building a company RV-12 (as a demonstrator?).

They stated that Vans supplied a pre-made panel and avionics harness with their kit, and that you had to use that in order to get the E-LSA certificate. This makes sense because getting an E-LSA certificate on a kit-built plane requires that plane to be a bolt-for-bolt replica of an SLSA prototype, certificated as such by the original manufacturer (in this case Vans). It's really no different than getting an E-LSA cert converted from an existing SLSA cert, it's just that the compliant SLSA prototype is the plane you already own.

So, no matter which way you got the E-LSA certificate, you begin with a plane that is compliant with the original manufacturer's spec and ASTM F37 (their compliant SLSA prototype). AFTER THAT though, it is now an Experimental, and as such can be experimented with.

NOTE, one difference between E-AB and E-LSA (some have noted there is no difference), is that with E-LSA, you can make whatever changes you want, but you have to keep its specification compliant with the Light-Sport Specification. That is with the maximum gross weight, # of passengers, max cruise speed, etc. But only the manufacturers, making SLSAs (or E-LSA kits based on their SLSA prototype) need to adhere to the ASTM F37 standards. So that is the one difference between E-AB and E-LSA.

So, what's with Dynon's comments? Well, I'm thinking they know they have to use Vans harness and the Avionics as spec'd in order to get the E-LSA certificate; but if they go for an E-AB certificate they can make their own panel and wiring, etc. Ok, all that makes sense.... BUT

It also makes sense that Dynon's perspective is rooted in that FIRST CERTIFICATE mindset. After all, their business was built on supplying E-AB builders who want to outfit their new babies the way they want from the outset. If you are building E-AB, why build a panel knowing you will change it later? But with E-LSA, you have to FIRST get your E-LSA certificate with a bolt-for-bolt replica of the SLSA prototype, which in most cases isn't IFR equipped, and still, some don't have Night VFR either.

What the guys from Dynon are not recognizing is that AFTER the RV-12 builder gets that initial E-LSA certificate with the Vans panel outfit, they, like me, can subsequently CHANGE the panel to include IFR equipment. And that's the exception they failed to note; and in failing to do so, declaring (seemingly unequivocally) that the RV-12 builder needed to register as an E-AB if they wanted to equip their plane for IFR, confused I and others that are E-LSA's.

Anyway, perspective is, many times, everything.

I think I have all my answers to this question now. Thanks to everyone and their insights and input. My Conclusion:

I can legally convert my SLSA to an E-LSA and per my reissued OL's I can legally modify the panel for IFR (per 91.205(d)). Then, if maintained properly, and I am IFR rated and current (and I am), I can legally fly under an IFR flight plan, in the system, and into IMC (if I so choose).

And so can the RV-12 builder (without registering as an E-AB).

 

[airguy]

The controlling documents are FAR 43 appendix A and AC 138 latest revision. FAA frequently defines a specific change as major even if it wouldn't be under appendix A. GPS install is one of those...not major if not connected to autopilot, major if it is.

The Lubbock TX FSDO disagrees with you.

 

[kellym]

For TC'd aircraft, that may be the case. But 14 CFR Part 43 does not apply to E-AB aircraft, per 43.1(b)(1). And AC's (either 20-183d, or even AC43.13-1B - the bible) are not regulatory. For new OL's written for E-AB aircraft, paragraph 23 from Order 8130.2J applies, and it says:

After incorporating a major change as described in § 21.93, the aircraft owner is required to reestablish compliance with § 91.319(b) and notify the geographically responsible FSDO of the location of the proposed test area...​

​

and for most other Experimental aircraft, Paragraph 22 says:

The geographically responsible FSDO where the aircraft is based must be notified, and its response received in writing, before flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined by § 21.93. The FSDO may require demonstrated compliance with § 91.319(b). (22)​

So for Experimental aircraft, 14 CFR Part 21.93 is the controlling regulation, as @airguy stated - NOT part 43, and certainly not AC's. And 21.93 states:

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.​

The problem with this is that it's SO vague as to be almost meaningless, in the context of many modification. Change a piston engine for a turbine? Sure - obviously Major. Change an airspeed indicator with no markings for one with markings? Obviously minor. But many things in between? What's the definition of "appreciable"? WTFK?

So it's left up to the person working on the Experimental plane (either E-LSA or E-AB) to make their own determination. Does adding GPS guidance to the existing A/P "appreciably" change operational characteristics? Not in my book, but others may disagree. Does installing an A/P, with connections to the flight controls in pitch and roll, "appreciably" change the operational characteristics or reliability? Eh - MAYBE. I could go either way on that...

There is no meaningful difference in the language. While advisory circulars are not generally regulatory, they can have that effect. To a FSDO, "appreciably change" can be as little as a word change in a placard. Given there are documents, the AC that says it is major, do you want to argue before the NTSB or a court that it is not? Good luck with that. I'm not going to sign off a condition inspection on a plane with such a change signed off as minor, where the original builder is no longer around and the owner has to get an A&P to put his signature and license on the line.

 

[dgaldrich]

Yes, always good advice. Of course, this advice applies in any aircraft, for any pilot. There's being legal, and then there is being safe.

As I stated in my original post, I really only want to be able to fly in light IFR. I'm an experienced IFR pilot and have been in some nasty stuff. I have enough experience to know I don't want to be in anything more than climbing through a light thin cloud or fog layer with this plane. But I do want to fly with the comfort and safety of being able to get on top where it may be smooth and clear. It beats the h... out of flying under a low cloud layer, bouncing around, for hours, just because you can't climb through what you know (or would like to try) as being a thin cloud layer. And it doubly beats the H... out of staying grounded out and about in a hotel for a couple of days because you can't get through that low cloud layer that you know is perfectly fine just a few thousand feet up.

And freezing precip. JUST SAY NO!!!! I've had ice on my wings. One must work to actively avoid it, IFR or VFR, IMHO.

I flew Cessna Caravans into Milwaukee Mitchell (MKE) for a couple of years and the ice in Wisconsin can be bleeping scary. Even boots and a hot prop weren't adequate some nights. You may have the experince and skill to do light IFR but not all instrument pilots do. Fly safe.