has a Warp drive had CTsw US approval? or European approval.

[Mac Bowden]

Interesting conversation about this topic.I don't doubt Rogers advice for one monent but how come FD have one set of rules for USA and another for U.K? If you check out this link you'll see that the CAA and FD sanction WarpDrive on CTsw......

http://www.bmaa.org/files/bm72_1_flight_design_ctsw.pdf

As for me, I've had a WarpDrive on for the past 4 years with about 450 hours on it and apart from some small dings on the nickle edge caused by some 'agricultural' strips the prop is still in great shape.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Mac,

 

 

You are right rules are a little different from country to country. This would be a non issue here in the US if we were an ELSA.

I had a Warp for years and on more than one plane. I have nothing against the Warp, but FD changed its mind about using them. They were only approved for the CT2K and the CTSW. They were never approved for the CTLS. I fought for a while to get FD to keep them as an option, but was shot down. I think people who fly out of dirt and gravel strips or like back country flying makes the Warp a good selection. It is hard to destruct with small debris and easy to field repair with a little superglue and baking soda or just some JB Weld epoxy.

 

Here's my question for you since you live in the U.K.

Here in the US and around the world the Warp used to be an option and it was no big deal. Then FD quit using the Warp as an option and only used Neuform for a while, then Sensenich came into the picture which I think overall is better all around.

 

If you have a Neuform on your plane in the U.K. right now can you just pull it off and put a Warp on it even though FD doesn't approve them any longer? Do you need FD approval in the U.K. to swap out equipment or change it? Is there a way for you to check on this?

[Roger Lee]

Hi Roger K,

 

If you have an ELSA then you can do whatever you want without FD's approval. Technically you do not need to send in or fill out an FD Major Alteration or repair form. You could put one on file with them if you felt like it, but not required. You would not need the FAA's approval either. Just do a good job of the documentation in your logbook.

 

I know the Warp is a lot cheaper in price, but the Sensenich would be a better choice over the three. If price isn't the issue and you aren't flying out of a dirt strip the Sensenich is a better performing prop.

[johnr]

Hi Roger & all interested owners.,

I really appreciate the advice that comes out of these discussions, it gave me a hint of where to look for the reference to Warp Drive .

It is on page 14 of the Flight Design MM for the CT2K & CTSW.

I feel there is an excellent argument that the Warp Drive can be fitted to any aircraft that was supplied with that maintenance manual.

Page 13 gives the standard equipment for the various configurations. Page 13 includes "engine 912 UL2 (80hp)

Page 14 is headed with Equipment it lists optional equipment the last 2 items are as follows

 

Add-on Warp Drive 3 blade prop.w.L/E protection with HPL-R hub

Add-on CR3-65-47-101.6 Neuform 3 Blade Prop. Black& White

 

It could easily be argued that if this EXTRAS list can only be fitted if it is ordered & fitted as original equipment if

we get sick of the red & white Neuform we cannot change to the Black & White one.

 

I am quite desperate to fit the Warp Drive . I have sent a copy of page 13,14 & 15 to the authorities & hope that they have

enough common sense to approve the fitment of the prop. The difference may easily be in the interpretation & I am in Australia.

We are more closely aligned to the UK & it is good news to hear that they are fitting the Warp Drive in the UK. It may be a wise

move to send a copy of that also.

Thanks again to all who have added to this post.

John.

[Roger Lee]

Hi John,

 

I hope it works out for you there. For back country and dirt strip flying it's a good choice. I fought this battle here and lost in all arenas. Do you guys across the pond have to get FD's approval to make changes or can your local regulatory group for aviation do it?

[FastEddieB]

In my E-LSA operating limitations, after a major alteration I am required to fly solo within a specified area for 5 hours.

 

I think my operating limitations were derived from boilerplate, so this may be pretty common.

[Mike]

Nearly all ct's in the Uk are fitted with the warp drive prop ive only seen a couple that wasn't

 

Mike

[paul m]

For the US S-LSA crowd...does anyone worry about a denial of coverage as a result of this issue in the event of an accident? For example if a Warp Drive flies off during flight and injures someone on the ground, would you worry that lack of an LOA would be a possible reason for denial? (I know most insurance policies on LSA still reference being certificated by the FAA under a Standard Airworthiness Certificate or something similar so we're already starting off behind the 8 ball, but let's ignore that for now).

[Jim]

I've been pretty clear on why I believe an LOA is not required on my particular plane. No LOA, no problem. That said, if FD thought there was a safety problem with the Warp Drive propeller, they could issue a Safety Bulletin or a Service Bulletin. Which I would take very seriously.

[chanik]

G’d day Roger,

 

I think this is where we will just have to disagree. I was talking about S-LSA and am, indeed, arguing solely from reference the FARs. I would further assert that all legal rights and obligations can be discerned just by a careful reading of those rules. That is really the basis for all administrative law and the concept of rule of law in general. So, sorry to be stubborn, but I only make, or tend to be swayed by, arguments framed in the context of the FARs. Rainbow is quite good at referencing their articles back to the FARs, BTW so I suspect they would aggree with this approach

 

In that vein, the E-LSA is a different case. THE AOI doesn’t count anymore, just your oplims. A prop change is a major change by part 43 and by reference to 21.93. The oplims will follow the guidelines in FAA 8130 for aircraft certification. A major change drops you back into phase 1 flight testing. You could just note it in the engine log but the proper way to handle it is to call a DAR or your local FSDO and have them come out and inspect your shiny new prop. They will likely assign a 5hr phase 1 (but might just sign it off if you showed it had been approved by FD) where you would record rpms, climb rates etc to verify and note in the logs it is still 14cfr 91.319 compliant. Section 144 part 6 of 8130.2f basically covers it. http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order%208130.2F%20incorp%20with%20Chg%203.pdf

This would also be true for a Sensenich, BTW or any other prop. Since FD isn’t mommy anymore, their approval or disapproval doesn’t matter.

[Roger Lee]

Most insurance companies do have a clause that states the plane must be currently airworthy.

Lack of an LOA could certainly affect your coverage. That said I posed that very question to Avemco a few years back. At the time I ask about a non FD part. Their comment was if the part wasn't involved in the problem it may not be a problem. But pass that up to a supervisor trying to save the company money and it may be a different story. If you have a non approved prop and that puts you out of airworthy, then you injure someone with that non approved prop you would most likely have a real problem.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Kurt,

 

I fully agree that ELSA isn't in this picture. You can do anything to your FD ELSA.

When I tried to get the Warp approved for a CT a while back I went to 5 different sources including the three I mentioned. (toss in the EAA and AOPA and you have 5) Every single one agreed. Most issues from the owners stand point is usually trying to interpret the regs. or failing to follow them through to see if there is a sub part or if it is talking only about the GA or LSA world. The mistakes are usually on the owners side. Anyone wanting to make this their pet project (like I did and FD can tell you I fought for this to say the least) can easily do it by making some phone calls and file a Fleet Approval request for the Warp. I had also submitted my request in writing to 2 different organizations. I tried to fight this and I rarely give up, but if I do it's usually after blood has been drawn.

 

If someone can show where I'm wrong with the all the agencies involved and get an LOA from FD for a Warp then you're far ahead of me. Now if FD changed it's mind today they could offer a Warp for a CTSW or a CT2K only because that is all they were ever approved for. They were never approved or tested for an LS so it would cost FD a ton of money to get all the test time flown off to be able to even offer it on an LS so it would comply with the ASTM standards.

[chanik]

For the US S-LSA crowd...does anyone worry about a denial of coverage as a result of this issue in the event of an accident? For example if a Warp Drive flies off during flight and injures someone on the ground, would you worry that lack of an LOA would be a possible reason for denial? (I know most insurance policies on LSA still reference being certificated by the FAA under a Standard Airworthiness Certificate or something similar so we're already starting off behind the 8 ball, but let's ignore that for now).

Insurance can only deny you if the FAA violates you. BTW even a safety bulletin would not compel you to remove the prop if one were issued, only a safety directive does that. SBs legally need to be read and considered. If FD issued a SB saying they wanted Warps removed because they were worried about hub cracks or something, a mechanic could log something like that they carefully inspected the hub according to Warp drive maintenance manual and legally leave the thing on. If FD issued a SD though saying the same thing, then you have to remove it.

[chanik]

Hi Kurt,

<snip>

 

If someone can show where I'm wrong with the all the agencies involved and get an LOA from FD for a Warp then you're far ahead of me. Now if FD changed it's mind today they could offer a Warp for a CTSW or a CT2K only because that is all they were ever approved for. They were never approved or tested for an LS so it would cost FD a ton of money to get all the test time flown off to be able to even offer it on an LS so it would comply with the ASTM standards.

Recall, I was pointing out that there is a legal loophole where and if FD had approved the warp in the AOI. Otherwise, I agree with the need for the LOA. My guess is most of the people you asked didn't realize this. regulatory law is turgid stuff but it is still just english. The full line I cited in 91.327 5 states that AFTER manufacture an alteration is permissable if the part has been approved by the manufacturer. Past tense. If it is listed in your manual and FD has not issued a SD to pull it, then it falls under 91.327 section 5 as a permissable alteration. Full stop. If it is NOT in your manual, then you have no evidence FD approved that prop for your plane so without an LOA, you are doing a major alteration and the FAA could easily violate you if they were grouchy.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Kurt,

 

I agree with all, except the insurance company issue. They are privately and or stock holder owned and don't need the FAA to approve or disapprove to cause you grief over a claim. They only go by the rules they have set forth in your contract and some do integrate the FAA such as keeping a current airworthy status to be covered. The FAA doesn't even need to be involved for the insurance company to deny. It may not even be an FAA issue. SD's can only be issued over a flight safety issue and not general issues.

 

The Warp was posted as an option on the internet and brochures years ago. It was in the parts manual, but I don't think it was in the individual AOI especially since they have undergone several changes..

[paul m]

Roger, as an aside, would you expect FD to make the Sensenich available on the CTLSi at some point? The only prop choice was the neuform when i ordered mine. ...and to test my learning from this thread, since no other prop was identified as an option for the CTLSi, everyone agree I would either need a fleet LOA or a personal LOA to change out to Sensenich? Is there any argument to be made that if they are approved for CTLS they are approved for CTLSi with no LOA?

[chanik]

Insurance is a civil contract so a little different but usually they have a line like this under exclusions (direct quote from my Chartis policy):

d) If you know the aircraft is not certified by the FAA under a Standard Ariworthiness Certificate in full force and effect while in flight.

 

An insurance company has a burden of proof here at the level of "prepondeance of evidence", actually a higher level than administrative law (which is "substantial evidence"), but they cannot claim a non-certified operation without the FAA violating you. Otherwise they have NO evidence. Incidently, they also have show that you most probably knew you were in violation to void the policy.

 

Agreed for SDs which is why warp still 'has been' approved by FD. Here is an online copy of an old CT2K and CTSW manual https://wiki.umn.edu/pub/CirrusWing/CirrusInfo/fd_poh.pdf Just search it for Warp.

[Roger Lee]

It's 2005 edition and has been replaced a few times and it's only a a POH. It doesn't give blanket approvals only how to use certain equipment or their specs or the aircraft specs. It doesn't give anyone permission to change their original plane's equipment from it's original airworthy cert. and that book would only apply to the plane it came with and no others.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Paul,

 

I was as surprised as anyone that FD went back to a Neuform after the Sensenich introduction on the CTLS. That means they put the Neuform on and did all the test time fly off with the Neuform. I do not know if they will introduce a Sensenich to the CTLSi and do not know why they didn't use the Sensenich to start with. At this point you would need to get an individual LOA for the Sensenich, but I'm not sure if they would give it out without test time flown off.

[chanik]

It's 2005 edition and has been replaced a few times and it's only a a POH.

<True but POH and AOI are equivalent. There was no other document specifically called AOI from FD at the time. Later they use the proper term >KK

It doesn't give blanket approvals only how to use certain equipment or their specs or the aircraft specs. It doesn't give anyone permission to change their original plane's equipment from it's original airworthy cert. and that book would only apply to the plane it came with and no others.

It doesn't have to. 91.327 gives the permission. the AOI just has to show that the parts were approved by FD. That it only applies to a plane that came with that specific POH has been my point all along.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Paul,

 

Just made a call to an inside friend of mine. We may see more Sensenich in the future with FD for the CTLSi, but it's still a wait and see.

 

Hi Kurt,

 

I called the FAA again and they disagree with you. You may want to give them a call since they are the ones someone will need to convince in the event of an incident. FAA LSA Division 405-954-6400

[chanik]

I'll bite. I called. Talked to Jay Tevis and Edsel Ford, quoted 91.327 and they both agreed it was fine to replace the prop with the Warp so longs as there is a specific part number referenced in the AOI. Edsel added it also should have at least a passing reference in the maintenance manual as well even if that just says to refer to prop manufacturer for installation and maintenance.

Your turn. ;-)

[Roger Lee]

Hi Kurt, tag your it,

 

I'll be the first one here publicly to admit I just learned something new and loop hole.

 

I just had a conference call with a couple of FAA people including the persons you talked to. I gave them some additional info they weren't privy to and we hashed out more specifics and we beat up 91.327, 65.85, 65.87 and 65.107. That's why I say you have to dig because sometimes it' boils down to interpretations and or lack of a complete picture. I think lack of complete picture is more at play here. It is going up another step in the chain of command and they are going to call me back tomorrow or Monday, but here is the scoop with all the info for the proper year aircraft and manuals for each.

 

First the Warp would have to be in the POH to put it on and it was in the 2005 manual. That part is correct to do it without a permission LOA, BUT FD doesn't tell you how to install it in the maint. manual for that year so you still need paperwork from them detailing and possibly getting FD training to install it. It says to follow the original MFG manual in paragraph 7.1, but I know for certain Warp doesn't have such a thing for the CT. I know because I worked with Warp a couple of years later to get some basic things made so it would work with our spinner and it wasn't in the FD maint. manual.

 

The manual you showed me was a 2005 which has the Warp listed so it could be put on for aircraft that were issued that POH for that year aircraft. The big but is the 2006 April revision of the manual and all manuals there after do not list the Warp so it can not be put on without a LOA. So anyone prior to April 2006 could use the Warp if they get instructions from FD on how to install it. If FD refused to issue instructions you could still be stuck. Plus FD could write in the next manual that it supersedes all manuals and you would be stuck.

Here are the manual pages.

In the SLSA world it needs to be in the POH or AOI and then it must be in the maint. manual on how to install. FD has some mistakes in their manuals as all LSA MFG's do.

 

I'm looking forward to the FAA call back.

 

I love these conversations. Makes a mind work and we all learn new things.

[chanik]

See now were playing the same game and coming to the same consensus. The only point I am sure is wrong here is that FD has issued instructions exactly how to install and maintain the Warp in 7.2 of the Maint.pdf They are the same basic instructions they have for the Neuform or, for that matter, the BRS: refer to original propeller manufacturer’s manual.

So here's a trick: One way you can advance a legal position is using inductive logic to drive to an absurd conclusion assuming the opposite. If FAA said those instructions were insufficient then they would be insufficient for all propeller installations FD has ever done or approved since their instructions are no more detailed in any of their other manuals. So FAA is obliged to accept that simple redirect statement in 7.2 as sufficient.

Now realize that at this point, you already would have a very strong case defending your actions in putting the warp prop on your 2005 CTSW or CT2K. The FAA experts are in a huddle, haggling over the fine points and even if they decide they don't like how FD has handled their documentation, that is a fault aimed at FD, not the poor S-LSA owner just trying to follow the rules.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Kurt,

 

Warp never had a manual for the CT and didn't even know extra parts were used to install their prop, but FD did have one for the Neuform and the Sensenich. If no in the US ever had to replace their warp they were good. I even posted the Sensenich instructions. The Warp has two parts you would need to useit on the CT for the Warp prop that FD doesn't make any more so parts alone would keep that from happening. They aren't Warp parts, but FD parts. FD wouldn't even have to issue a statement about Warp other than when you ask they could simply say that parts aren't available any longer. How do I know this because FD called me last week for a broken part off a crashed Warp and their new parts aren't the same. The new spinner spindles are longer by 3/4" and the mounting back is totally different.now and they don't make the 1/4" face plate anymore that must go with the Warp.

 

Any maint. that is not described within any SLSA maint. manual legally is supposed to be given written instructions on the procedures or attend an FD training session for that maint.

 

Here's a really good example and we are all guilty here.

No where in the FD maint. manual does it describe how to change tires. So legally you need a document from FD telling you how.

 

Don't worry all LSA MFG's fall down in their manuals.