"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:12:26 -0600, Charlie
wrote:


I can't quote 'chapter & verse' but I suppose you've heard the story of
the guy with the Long-eze who made some (by legal definition) major
changes to a system on the plane, logged it, changed it back, logged it,
never notified the FAA or the insurer (Avemco). The plane later crashed
due to a problem unrelated to the changes the owner made. It did serious
damage (multiple hundreds of thousands$) to stuff on the ground. Story
is Avemco refused to pay on the liability based on the plane .

After hearing he story I spoke face to face with an Avemco rep at the
next SNF, & he did not deny the story; he attempted to defend Avemco's
actions.

I was there. The pilot was Bill Davenport. The real reason he was
denied, and that they won in court, was that he lied.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...LA180& akey=1

He certified it with a fuel pump. He later took it off - and told
everybody around what he was doing. He did his first flight with it
off, and did a low, high speed pass on his first circuit around the
field. The engine sputtered. Instead of taking it back up and
gliding around (like Dick Rutan used to do in the Long EZ Airshow) he
tried to set down in the middle of his high speed pass.

Of course he couldn't stop, he even had flying speed at the end of the
runway. So he took off, did a lollypop turn and crashed into a
garage.

At first he claimed he'd certified it without a fuel pump. Then, when
Dick Rutan (hired as a consultant) found the imprint of the fuel pump
on the firewall, he manufactured a set of logs showing that he'd
certified it without the pump, installed one, and took it back out.

The Judge said each time he'd done that, he should have put it in a
test period. Since he didn't his airworthyness cert was void, and the
insurance didn't have to pay.

I am very glad I am no longer at the field where he flies. He
unfortunately has another Long EZ. It's appearance defied
description.

Richard, do you know why he removed the fuel pumps in the first place?

Everyone should read the NTSB report on this crash. It reads like a laundry
list of how to do things wrong. Apparently, the builder removed *both* fuel
pumps, despite a call out in the plans for 2 pumps (one mechanical and one
electric) and despite emphasis being placed on this in the Canard Pusher
newsletter. The builder also installed fuel tank vents in a bad location.
And re-plumbed the fuel tanks and selector valve in a manner other than what
was in the plans (and in a manner that conflicts with good design practice).

To top it all off, the builder didn't properly install the hard points for
the seatbelt restraint system.

He is lucky to be alive...

KB