The end is near! Or is it?
The reference is to the long-running effort to revise the FAA regulation affecting Light-Sport Aircraft. The new ruleset has been discussed since 2017 and started to take shape in early 2019. Almost two years later, what is its status?
Some in the industry believe the FAA is about to release what’s called an NPRM, a Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
But an NPRM is not going to be forthcoming soon. Instead, the agency is preparing for a full internal review of the proposals, known as LSA 2023.
That’s because the FAA has a deadline mandated by Congress of the end of 2023 to complete the revisions.
The Background
Before we get to details, let’s review the situation. When Trump was elected, he promised to reduce regulations that he believed were holding back the U.S. economy. He has largely succeeded at this goal. New regulations, while not stopping, have slowed from the high-speed work under the previous administration.
As the FAA began work on MOSAIC — a sweeping reform of special airworthiness certification that includes greatly anticipated reforms to the light-sport aircraft category, amateur-built aircraft, and other major benefits for the legacy general aviation fleet — agency officials knew they needed to end other regulations in order to pass this new one. Trump required that for every new regulation, two regulations must end.
Even before MOSIAC began, the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA), of which I am the volunteer president, partnered with the U.S. Ultralight Association (USUA), led by Roy Beisswenger, to produce white papers on LSA topics we wanted to be considered for reforms. We also traveled multiple times to visit FAA officials in person. This work began in 2014 before the FAA began to seriously contemplate changes to the Sport Pilot/LSA rule.
LAMA and USUA have worked to persuade the FAA to open up opportunities, not just for pilots, but for the builders of LSAs and the companies that service the LSA community.
At the start of these discussions, FAA officials spent a year and several meetings asking the industry and pilots what they wanted in changes to the SP/LSA regulation. They got an earful.
Wise advice later suggested trimming the wish list to something the FAA could handle. If presented with a long list, the effort could reduce, not help, chances of getting what was desired.
What LAMA/USUA originally requested:
- Special-LSA (fully built, not kit) Gyroplanes
- Aerial Work/Commercial Use of LSAs
- Electric Propulsion
- Single Lever Control (in-flight adjustable prop)
Six years on, FAA officials said they have included for consideration every LAMA request, putting these suggestions in the draft regulation that FAA personnel will now begin to closely review.
Other changes under consideration by the FAA:
- Increased weight (likely based on a formula)
- Four seats
- Retractable gear
- Increased airspeed
- Electric/Hybrid propulsion
- A maximum stall speed and a horsepower cap
And while the agency is updating the LSA rules, some FAA goals have not changed:
- LSA of the future should remain “safe, simple, and easy to fly.”
- “We want to be less prescriptive…to leave more for industry to decide.”
- “LSA has been a successful development.”
- The FAA sees “opportunities to safely expand this sector of aviation while decreasing burden on the industry” and seeks to “make this a positive for industry.”
Bigger, Better…and More Expensive?
To say LAMA and USUA are hopeful about a substantial enlargement of the LSA field would be a timid statement. The organizations are hopeful for a significant expansion, but…
The two organizations’ request for more privileges does not mean they think all LSA should become larger, faster, more capable aircraft.
More broadly, LAMA and USUA absolutely support smaller, slower, less costly, more highly specialized aircraft that add so much appeal to this segment of recreational aviation.
Best is if the “affordable” side of aviation can thrive, even as the organizations hope for changes to allow activities, such as commercial use.
FAA Nears Ex Parte
As September 2020 nears, the FAA is approaching “ex parte.” During this period, FAA officials can no longer discuss what they are proposing.
That’s because before the FAA can finish the proposal and prepare it for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it must go through an internal review. This is no small undertaking.
FAA executive management has considerable say in how and where this goes, so executives overseeing this work have begun attending a series of weekly meetings.
During this review, what the rule writers have prepared will be examined by the FAA’s legal department who will, among other things, assure the language is proper and fits correctly within FAA’s other regulations.
FAA’s economists must assure the regulation does not put undue economic burden on the public and taxpayers.
In addition, others inside the FAA will have their say.
After that, the people actually preparing the work must accommodate the comments and requests of executives, lawyers, economists, and others.
But before the ex parte period started, LAMA and USUA had a further update on industry requests. The news remains positive.
The Latest
LAMA and USUA recently had conversations with two essential FAA departments: Aircraft Certification and Flight Standards.
The folks in Aircraft Certification are the main people to whom the organizations have been speaking. Their role is obvious, but they do not work on the operational side — that is, which pilots may fly LSA under what conditions, and who can perform maintenance on them.
Flight Standards addresses the operation side. For LAMA, one of the most important initiatives has been Aerial Work or Commercial Use of LSA. LAMA believes this is one of the most valuable aspects for both manufacturers and the pilots who operate the aircraft they build.
Speaking to personnel from Flight Standards, we opened the discussion by explaining three areas that had not yet been well addressed:
- Pilot qualifications for expanded use of SLSA, such as commercial use
- What kinds of ratings may be required for aircraft with added capability
- Maintenance personnel requirements (recall the FAA expects to add electric propulsion)
Flight Standards rule writers confirmed that commercial use is still being reviewed, but the focus has been on fixed-wing, three-axis airplanes.
For other aircraft, LAMA and USUA asked what certificate will be needed to do commercial work? Sport Pilot? Private Pilot? Commercial?
Industry participants then reminded the FAA that for powered parachutes and weight shift control trikes, no commercial rating is available. The question focused on including these types in all privileges.
FAA officials then asked if the industry believes a Commercial Pilot certificate is desirable for this work.
USUA’s Beisswenger expressed the opinion that a Commercial certificate wasn’t necessary and that allowing private powered parachute pilots additional privileges to what they already had — such as demonstrating an aircraft for sale and towing — had proven sufficient.
He also mentioned that the military has expressed interest in, for example, certain powered parachutes. At least two companies are presently selling aircraft to the military, which prefers to support aircraft with commercial viability, but FAA rules don’t presently allow for that.
During this teleconference, LAMA and USUA learned that rule writers are expected to begin working on the regulation’s Preamble points by Sept. 5. The Preamble is what is used to justify the rule and is written first. That is when they will officially enter ex parte.
FAA’s Overarching Purpose
Light-Sport Aircraft designs and the manufacturers of these aircraft have performed well and FAA generally recognizes this.
Almost 16 years since the LSA regulations were introduced in September 2004, the FAA acknowledges the industry is meeting the requirements satisfactorily. Evidence of this is the agency’s use of LSA experience with industry consensus standards as it rewrites the regulation for Part 23 (legacy GA aircraft) certification.
FAA rule writers also are looking to fill a yawning gap between LSA and Part 23 conventionally certified aircraft. On this particular point a whole new category — called “Light Personal Aircraft” — has been floated.
Finally, the agency confirmed it has also been reviewing this proposal with aviation authorities in other countries.
With internal reviews shifting into higher gear, but with the flow of communication coming to a temporary close, the LSA community will be observing the FAA’s actions very closely.
1320 pounds is 600 kilograms (600kg) which if I recall correctly is the EASA magic number for LSA. The FAA took that number and ran with it, something about “harmonization of standards” or some such.
Since the mission of the EASA is to eliminate aviation entirely and have everyone take the bus, they will change their 600kg limit when pigs not only fly, but can fly supersonic, and single stage to orbit would be even better.
This kind of top-down-regulation-from-above (which cannot be appealed or even questioned) is a big part of the reason the UK left the EU. (Their decision was economically regretful, but completely understandable.)
The last time I checked, WE were (more or less) in charge of our country, not some unelected European bureaucrat, or a collection of them. Why are WE “bound” by THEIR arbitrary decision about what size/weight/horsepower/speed/complexity of airplane is “safe” and what isn’t?
Look at your radio license. What? You don’t have one? That’s because the FCC regulates radios in this country and says we don’t need it, not like the ITU (International Telecommunications Union), which DOES require pilots to have a radio operator’s license in the rest of the world. And they do. (And if you fly to the Bahamas, you need it, and to Canada as well, but the Canadians are too polite to inquire 😉
So if we told the ITU to take a hike and there have been zero consequences, nobody died, nobody declared war on us (“Make my day!”), nobody boycotted the US, in fact, nobody even noticed!!!, then why don’t we tell the EASA to take the same hike and go make THEIR subjects miserable, because WE are citizens of a sovereign nation, not subjects of some infestation of overseas paper-pushers who are probably required to have seatbelts on their office chairs.
Abandon the 600kg/1320lb limit TODAY, by close of business, don’t even wait for Monday (which is a federal holiday and they won’t be working – although sometimes it is hard to tell even on other days) and raise the number and the specifications here, in the US, to something that makes sense for us!
Now – while the idea of get rid of two rules for every new rule is very appealing, and it got votes in the past and will get votes in the future, that will happen when the supersonic pigs above not only able to go into orbit, but can exceed the speed of light.
Rule #1 – No bureaucrat or bureau will EVER relinquish ANY of their powers.
Rule #2 – Elected officials come and go, staff (the bureaucracy) endures forever, and they know it.
Rule #3 – Elected officials divide their time between running for reelection and actually doing “government”, and running for reelection has historically been far more important to them.
Therefore, the best strategy for the bureaucrats to do nothing (their normal, resting state) and simply wait for the next election when things will change back to “normal”.
Keep trying . . . keep pushing . . . maybe we can actually get something done. If we don’t try, I guarantee nothing will change.
Nailed it!
An excellent elaboration on what I posted FEBRUARY 19, 2021 AT 8:06 PM and have spread on the Interweb anywhere I could.
Ref Rule #1: the FAA could ASSERT[not relinquish] its powers with an IMMEDIATE edict expanding SP privileges to allow aircraft up to these nice, safe, round numbers: max Vs 60, max Vh 160, MTOW 2600 but retaining max 2 seats day VFR [because fundamentally what they and politicians care about is how many people get killed per crater and how often]. Then take till 2023 or even 2025 to produce, NPRM, and implement their all-encompassing formula.
Johnson, LAMA, USUA, and AOPA are stalling simple increases. NOT FAA. Go read this 9AUG2020 discussion where USUA lobbyist Beisswenger muddies the waters over gyroplanes and powered parachutes while Johnson keeps pushing for commercial uses [which FAA intelligently opposes]: https://lama.bz/newsletter
NO discussion of expanding the list of eligible legacy aircraft. No $ in it for those two!
Merely what 99% of US pilots want to see!
Another part of the problem may be with https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/SLSA_Strategic_Plan.pdf
which includes
“3.1.6.3 Continue to identify appropriate changes to regulations, policy, and consensus standards to allow continuous improvement of the industry-led light-sport program.”
Time for it to be USER [citizen pilot] led.
Readers should consider EMailing my second paragraph to:
Earl Lawrence
Susan Cabler
Mark Giron
Bart Angle
et alia
@FAA
LAMA is sucking the life out of grass roots flying . Nothing but a group of rich guys trying to make more money under the guise of helping sport pilots.
I know you won’t print this Dan but that is what has been going on for years.
Big business and big money keeping us out of general aviation. Sport pilot commercial, and retractable gear and constant speed props and 4 seat are you kidding me . The FAA does not want that kind of ridiculous unsafe feature in a sport pilot plane .That does not make spot pilot any safer . We need safe affordable simple aircraft not complex pie and sky aircraft. You guys are in the pockets of LAMA and you know it.
Fred M
Truth
The whole truth
Nothing but the truth
Does anybody know the proposed weight formula ?
KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. Right now do just the LITTLE it would take (slight gross weight and stall speed increases) to immediately bring ONLY the SIMPLEST and most POPULAR and AFFORDABLE US-built legacy two seat trainers under Sport Pilot: Beech 77, Cessna 120/140/150/152, all Ercoupe, all Luscombe, Piper PA-28-140/Colt/Tomahawk, and all Taylorcraft FOR PURELY PERSONAL NON-REVENUE USE., Sorry: Grummans are too hot. Four seaters double the fatalities [“entire local family killed in plane crash”] and political response to negative PR and THAT is what FAA fears most. Do this NOW. Just as AOPA f-ed up Basic Med to please selfish reckless rich f’s like Inhofe who wanted to keep their bigger and faster toys, don’t let selfish f’s who want four seats and retractables in cahoots with those seeking income (gyros, electrics, commercial SP use – are you KIDDING ME?) and those paid by and/or beholden to manufacturers [Dan Johnson, Beisswenger] f this up. They already loaded in their BS and confused the FAA and STOPPED PROGRESS. They can try lobbying for their perq$ later. Expand SP to allow basic legacy trainers RIGHT NOW! Most of us ain’t gettin’ any younger or richer.
I think the Cherokee 140 should also be included in the light sport too, the gross weight in mine is only 2150, empty is 1250.
What needs to happen at a grass roots level is to allow trainer type aircraft like the cessna 150 .piper colt and othe variants of the ercoupe to be allowed into the LSA certification. These were all the aircraft that student pilots have been training in for yers and at 16 could be soloed by young pilots. This 1320 gross weight is the sticking point along with the 45 mph stall speed both of which need to be increased to accomodate the above aircraft.
I understand where the money is being made today with LSA but most grass root pilots can not afford $100,000.00 aircraft . I am sure if the the Cessna 150 and other trainers are brought under the LSA new rule those aircraft will double in price very quickly too but availability of other aircraft will increase the availbility or choices grasss root pilots will have going forward
👍🏻
There ought to be a category of aircraft where an owner can move a certified aircraft into an Experimental (or similar) category and treat it essentially the same as an E-AB.
“ Special-LSA (fully built, not kit) Gyroplanes
Aerial Work/Commercial Use of LSAs
Electric Propulsion
Single Lever Control (in-flight adjustable prop)”
I never saw this as much of a wish list.
As to formula Ford max weight. I haven’t seen formulas that did anything but complicate matters.
BTW, what does MOSAIC stand for?
MOSAIC is Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification. The LSA is certified under “special airworthiness” The same as experimental,research,amateur homebuilt.market servey etc.,hence the “pink” airworthiness certificate rather than a white cert. in a “standard” category (part 23) aircraft.
Nothing in that wish list about upping the gross weight. Hmmmm, I wonder why?
Correction: “As to formula for max weight…..”
If you look at what RANS and Carbon Cub are doing you may get a hint where the FAA is likely to go regarding expansion of LSA capabilities. RANS is selling a factory built SLSA with two optional engines that far exceed the HP, cruise speed limits and gross limits of LSA. Same for Carbon Cub.
Did the FAA, with all of it’s “wisdom”, consider the Cessna 120, 140 or even the older 150’s as light sport eligible? Aeronca’s and Ercoupes should also be included. No, I didn’t think so.
My Ercoupe is LSA.
I think LAMA wants to keep the very restrictive 1320# weight limit for fear of competition from the huge numbers of used 150s and Cherokee 140s out there.
I was studying & flying as an excited student under a LSA student certificate in Idaho.
My instructor then sold the LSA plane I was flying. I had a stent put in 2 years ago and flew til the day the plane was sold.
I am an accomplished Barefoot water skier at nearly 65 yrs of age, in March. Built my own house 2000sq ft and pole barn. How many Pilots do that physical stuff? Too many biased doctors in the FAA.
Really sucks to wait til 2023 to get instruction in a light sport to qualify when all I have is a few hrs to go before solo.
Arizona, Seattle are my options. Long ass drive to get in hours!!!!
Purely Goverment BS as I’ve found after spending 6Yrs in the Navy supporting the US under honorable conditions.
They almost ruined my spirit for flying, but they are the same Goverment we’ve always had, so that’s why I’m not giving up!! I’ll fly ultralight if they can’t get their heads together.
Would like to just take my wife with me. Approve C150s. Get costs DOWN. Allow experimental LSAs. What I am seeing is Political Lobbying for the LSA industry for their newest fandango. I’m not really seeing “Hey this is __________ he wants to lean how to fly doesn’t have a rich life style but is excited about the idea, maybe we can get him into the sport program?””
Anything on Cesna 150s becoming part of the LSA type?
When I learned to fly we would switch between the Cessna 152 & the Cherokee 150 a four seater. There was very little difference in overall flight handling characteristics at all. There had been plenty of 16 year old’s soloing the Cherokee. I am reasonable average in build and height (5′ 11″&195lbs) but many are not. They aren’t fat just bigger so lets all cut them out of affordable flying cuz 2 seaters are so much vastly safer right! NO! Many 2 seaters have been replaced in flight schools with newer 4 seat trainers like 172’s and the PA-28 series of aircraft. They are no safer or dangerous than a 2 seater. We have a real chance to change aviation here and some of you want to compromise as if we have no leverage. Light sport proved the concept of safety WITHOUT burdensome regulations. Now lighter weight has a small bit of its own challenges such as landing in cross winds with pilots accustom to heavier training aircraft like 172/PA-28’s, now solo flying light weight aircraft slightly more shorter coupled. This can be avoided by additional training. OR JUST BY ALLOWING/ BUILDING HEAVIER SAFER AIRCRAFT SO YOU CAN BRING MORE THAN JUST A FRIEND, FULL TANK OF GAS AND A DOGGONE SANDWICH ALONG!!! Because when the FAA ( it was the CAA then) came up with an average pilot weighing 170 it was during the great depression when many were eating the family dog just to survive, no wonder they only weighed 170. Now we are eating too much I agree but larger people 6′ 3″ for example are not going to weight 170 lbs they just aren’t! So lets all dig deep, expand our sometimes dimly lit imagination and really reach here when it comes time for the comment period. Push the envelope and try and think our our great grandchildren here NO JUST US!
Nice response to this article. Hope they change the limits so it is not so hard to fly them. Right now I have a nice plane but cannot find a FAA instructor to do check ride because of weight limits. I need someone 150lbs or under. That limits us to mostly the lady’s.
You need less fuel or go on a diet…GW on LSA is 1320 lbs. LSA planes don’t weigh that much. Mine is about 800 lb.
The first step in the process for sport pilot and sport pilot aircraft should be the use of all 2 seat trainers from the past that even a sixteen year olds can solo All if not most are relatively easy to fly. Start there and see what the FAA does.
I would like to see an increase in power and weir so that an LSA pilot could fly a C150 or alike.
I am totally in favor of expanding the LSA rules to include 4 place LSA aircraft as I have a family of three and would love to be able to take them all with me
Hi:
It would be great if the FAA would allow all the 2 seat trainers from the past to be included in the sport license catagory . Planes like the cessna 150 series all the ercoupe series including the alon and those other variants of that design. Also the Piper colt and all 2 seat trainers from the past most of witch were flown and soloed by a 16 year old.prior to them getting their license. That would be a gret step in the right direction. 1320 gross weight is not a great rule I believe a 4 seat option for sport pilot is not a safe atlterative and I don’t support that rule . A 2 seat trainer would be the best first step to take.
Thank You
Fred M
So….A pilot deemed and licensed to fly 2 people all of a sudden isn’t capable because of the addition of another passenger or two? Even a Sport Pilot has to pass certain criteria to be licensed. Taking off, cruising, and landing doesn’t change by adding a couple of passengers.
Leftist thinking like that will have us all in helmets just to go to the store….Chicken Little Liberalization is killing our Country.
Keep up the good work.
I welcomed a LSA at first until I started to fly a few and found them to be manufactured poorly and watched as they literally fell apart under the rigors of flight training!
All the FAA had to do at the time was raise the 1320 lbs require to 1600 lbs and all the US legacy aircRaft like a Cessna 150 and 152 could have been included?
Probably Cessna if that happened Cessna would have opened the production line for these aircraft?
Instead foreign imports of LSA aircRaft flooded the US market. They failed because they were to expensive and built poorly. Many had accidents and today they still are expensive…..
One has to ask why didn’t the FAA put the weight at 1600lbs ? In a word the answer was “POLITICS”
“Sufficient” is not a commendable goal. I would also like to see their/our/commercials list of don’t wants. If we can deem progress having been made by hitting or comprimising to get some of our wants. I would very much like a list that if some portion of is achieved it would define failure.
Safe, simple, easy to fly.
Cessna 150 . . .
It isn’t fast, it isn’t sexy, it won’t carry a lot, and it won’t go very far between fill-ups – but what do you want from an airplane that costs under 20 grand? Cheap to own, cheap to fix, cheap to feed, won’t eat you out of house and home. Rugged, too. You wouldn’t believe some of the stuff I’ve seen student pilots do to 150s, and the airplane shrugs it off and keeps coming back for more.
Now if the FAA would only see that we already have a terrific LSA in the existing C-150/152 fleet, we’d be all set.
It’s not just GA that needs regulation unburdening…. The entire FAA needs massive reform.
For the flyers, start with FAA medical reform. There is simply no reason why people who can otherwise medically drive on freeways at 70+ mph shouldn’t be able to also medically fly their personal C172s and Bonanzas with simply having a valid enhanced driver’s license in their pocket. A similar (but not identical) situation is true for multi-crew flight deck airline pilots, in the era of modern avionics, autoland, and massively automated systems. The medical rules could be made much more humane and lenient for Commercial flying, for aspects like recovered cardiac patients, and other ailments now disqualifying. Something like the present FAA Class 1 and Class 2 criteria should only likely be applied to Commercial pilots of single-pilot operations, where it arguably might make some sense.
The Air traffic system is an obsolete utter disgrace. It is now far too costly and inefficient, for what it intends to do, and serves neither GA (completely unnecessary access and use constraints, and TFRs), nor does it serve air transport properly (circuitous inefficient routes and completely unnecessary inefficient R.O.T. runway delays), nor drones (denied legitimate airspace access), and even has serious adverse military impacts (totally inappropriate constraints on adequate defense training airspace, and joint use airspace provisions).
ADS-B and WAAS are both completely obsolete misused abominations, with NextGen being “PastGen”. Nextgen needs a complete redesign and overhaul from top to bottom, to properly use automated 3D and 4D trajectory separation based on RNP, families of Data Links, and proper use of monitoring, with elements like evolved very LOW COST TCAS, and proper use of ADS-A, ADS-B, and ADS-C (NOT FAA’s foolish screwed up overspecified overly expensive RTCA DO-260B based ADS-B version, that will NEVER adequately work). FAA’s version of present foolish 91.225/91.227 ADS-B is nothing more than an ineffective placebo, serving as a welfare relief act for avionics companies, and avionics mod shops. It will never serve to actually affordably fix NextGen, or solve GA and drones real long term airspace access needs.
The whole FAA needs reform. Not just LSA criteria.
That’s how I see it.
THUMBS UP!!!!!! It’s really a shame we may be losing Trump.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 for Jimmy CC
Sorry you interjected politics into a very informative forum. This “two for one” mandate in regard to cutting regulations actually has held up the process. Not saying the next four years will be any better, but often I’ve likened the past presidency as flying a localizer back course approach (not too many remember) — You turn away from the needle! Think back to Trump’s theme song from 2016, “You don’t always get want you want.” I apologize for coming back politically. I think most of us just want this country centered on the needle again.
The FAA is a Government Agency. This is political…And you criticize me for a political statement with that gobblety gook you just spewed? Just so you know, those that aren’t Liberal are well aware of your tactics. We snicker at you. And the next 4 years (assuming this stolen election somehow succeeds) will be horrible for aviation. Just like it was the 8 years previous. Have your TDS looked at.
MOSAIC began in 2013, before trump
It would surely be nice, now in retirement, to just have the requirement of a annual condition inspection — as opposed to a full inspection authorization — on my 1963 Cessna 150C (1500 lb gross)
Around 10 years ago, the FAA and a panel of ~40 people inside and outside the Agency began work on the Congressionally mandated FAR Part 23 rewrite. One of the Appendices to the excellent document that ultimately popped out after YEARS of work was a potential new category of airworthiness called Primary — non Commercial. The idea was that owners who only flew recreationally could voluntarily choose to re-license their airplane in the P-NC category which would essentially work similar to E-AB airplanes and allow an A&P (without IA — there are lots more of them) to perform a condition inspection annually to meet airworthiness requirements. That ~260 page document never went anywhere !! Instead, we got NORSEE. In addition, equipment installed in these aircraft did not have to have TSO or STC … just like E-AB. Finally, such aircraft could go back to Standard Airworthiness standards after a survey and “blessing” by an IA that it met it’s original Type Certificate.
So where did such a novel, practical and much needed idea go? No place. As a Master A&P with >50years experience, this subject incenses me. Why doesn’t someone at 800 Independence Ave wake up and realize that aviation is dying in this Country? Just the other day, I was working on a ’46 Aeronca and lamenting that we’re flying such old and crude airplanes precisely because of intransigence on the part of the FAA. Safety IS paramount … but lets not forget the premise that promulgation of aviation is — likewise — paramount. And, a part of safety is flying newer machines with today’s technology. Cases in point … the Rotax iS engines vs. 1940’s designed tractor engines or Garmin G3X panels vs. steam gauges or carbon fibre vs. irish linen. I could go on …
When LSA was originally introduced, no one had any idea that it might be as successful overall as it was. Flying an airplane with a pink special airworthiness certificate by a pilot without a medical with installed equipment that isn’t necessarily TSO’ed built by newcomers (read agile) to aviation manufacturing has now proven itself as a practical way to reduce the cost of both entry and maintenance of flying. These airplanes aren’t falling on people’s heads. It’s time to expand LSA into a “gateway” path for ALL to enter aviation. I’m tired of flapping jaws … I want ACTION !! 2023 for MOSAIC … give us all a break, FAA.
And if I hear the phrase “Ex Parte” one more time … MY head is going to explode ! Michael Huerta hid behind that term on the subject of medical reform and got it shoved you know where by Sen. Inhofe when a “perfect storm” opportunity presented itself to him and BasicMed came into being. Maybe NOW is the time to do the same with the airplane side of the equation?
Now imagine a world where a Sport Pilot could fly his/her C172 relicensed as a P-NC airplane. With so few words, the changes necessary to make that happen would be doable by years end. (Big sigh!) T. Boyle has it right.
I built my own airplane. I can maintain AND do the annual on it myself. But not on that old C150 sitting over there. Why not? It’s no more complicated than my airplane – probably simpler. But I can’t work on it or inspect it. Therefore, I won’t own it. What a shame because I’d love to own and fly some of these simple factory built airplanes. Instead, these perfectly good airplanes sit unused, rotting away. Let’s get this idiocy changed!!
“I built my own airplane.”
That’s the keep point to being able to do your own condition inspection.
Sorry “key point”.
Once again , a group of competent aviation business leaders could eliminate most of this bureaucracy and produce a better, safer , solution in half the time and expense .
Yes. Personal aviation needs to be massively deregulated, and the remaining regulation needs to be based on “if it meets some basic standards, then prove it’s not safe” rather than “prove it IS safe”. This is how we regulate cars and boats, for example. We don’t regulate personal boats as if they were mini cruise ships, and we don’t regulate cars as if they were small buses. There’s no good reason not to treat personal aircraft the same way, instead of regulating them as mini-airliners and nanny-regulating them out of existence.
This endeavor continues to focus more on those who hope to make money off of LSA by selling more aircraft. What is not given much emphasis is what those of us who are stuck in the category really want and that is increased gross weight and higher stall speed, or at least the use of flaps to meet the current mandate. I for one want relief from those restrictions that result in too many design compromises to keep weight down as well as excessively large wings for high no flaps stall speeds. It has always bugged me that in the rest of the world flaps are allowed to meet the stall speed requirement but for some reason the use of flaps is apparently considered to complex for the LSA pilot. The arbitrary weight limit is also a bit of a joke. Just how many of the typical two seat LSA’s flying around does anyone think actually stay within the weight regs. I would think that most just fill the tanks, fill the seats and go fly. With so much wing there is a lot of margin there but of course even if it not approved.
Just how many of the typical two seat LSA’s flying around does anyone think actually stay within the weight regs.
I don’t know, but mine does.
I would think that most just fill the tanks, fill the seats and go fly.
Maybe they do. I don’t.
If I did, with two adult men aboard and full tanks and bags, I’d be over gross by 60 lb, or 5%. Climb rate would decline by 50 fpm and would still beat a C172 all day. Stall speed would increase by 1 kt. Bending moment on the wing roots would actually be lower. It’s hardly a physical safety issue.
But there’s a considerable personal safety issue, because I might run into the FAA, and being 60 lb over gross might result in some fairly severe consequences. So I don’t.
“But there’s a considerable personal safety issue, because I might run into the FAA, and being 60 lb over gross might result in some fairly severe consequences. So I don’t.”
I don’t know why people get so obsessed about authority figures and religiously following “the rules” every second. There just aren’t that many FAA thugs in there jackboots out there running around our little airports, so try not get paranoid. The FAA are not out there watching you fly your LSA over gross – they could care less about you. Just go out and fly, have some fun, and forget about the FAA.
I like what you’re saying, but in the end it’s not the FAA that is the final arbiter of what you can and can’t do – it’s your insurance company. If you have an accident and the investigation determines you’re over gross then you might find yourself uninsured. The only way to avoid this consequence is for the FARs/laws to change to become more lenient.
Flying is about freedom; it’s ironic that we are so restricted and yet still consider it so.
Actually, in this rare case, the final arbiter isn’t the Insurance company, but an individual’s financial risk tolerance because there is no federal regulation requiring insurance.
True, but I think most owners’ risk tolerance requires insurance, to protect their estate.
Point well made but there is always a risk you could come under scrutiny. Case and point, where I live, had a Champ with a student and instructor. Engine quite, ended up in a field, both occupants in the hospital, eventually recovered. During accident investigation find the airplane to be way over gross, oops. Can’t hide that……
You broke the code, Sarah. LAMA doesn’t represent the rank and file aviator or aviator wannabe who wishfully looks skyward at Oshkosh or SnF and who just wants to fly a reasonable recreational airplane which is affordable, usable and safe. They represent the … MANUFACTURERS who want to sell new airplanes. Any changes which might allow currently existing and certificated airplanes like the uber successful C172 — which mere mortals can afford to buy and fly — to meet updated LSA standards won’t sell more new airplanes and — therefore — LAMA could care less.
In much the same way that Cessna’s CPC marketing approach of old knew that people who bought Cessna 150’s would ultimately want a C182 and maybe even a Citation, maybe it’s time for LAMA to wake up to that premise, too. Redwood trees start as saplings, guys! Ultimately, the beginners in LSA will want newer or faster airplanes and THAT is where their bread and butter will come from. And when the volume of new LSA’s sold goes up, maybe the price of new airplanes can come down to the magic $100K figure originally touted as the entry target price back in 2004? The Vashon Ranger proves it’s nearly doable 16 years later in 2020. I’d LOVE to own a Carbon Cub but — at my age — I ain’t spending well north of $200K to get one.
Read my response to Steve elsewhere in this column …
The list of ‘wants’ is silly. The biggest complaint for SLSA is useful load and possibly a raising of the cruise speeds by 20ktas or so. So what are you guys going for?
Special-LSA (fully built, not kit) Gyroplanes
Aerial Work/Commercial Use of LSAs
Electric Propulsion
Single Lever Control (in-flight adjustable prop)
None of those things is wanted by the majority of the community. And at the slow speeds of LSA why worry about a constant speed prop? And electric planes are not practical except flying around a pattern. Trying to get four seats and retractable gear is good for who? A four seat aircraft is a totally different beast. Retractable gear in small GA planes is senseless and expensive to insure and adds no value.
The model of LSA I own cruises a full 20 kt faster in Europe than it does here. To do that, it needs an in-flight adjustable prop. I’ve been informed that simply coarsening out a fixed pitch prop won’t work, because you end up in a bad place on takeoff – too much torque, not enough RPM. And Rotax’ new 915, which would be useful for pulling a higher-gross-weight aircraft at the higher speeds, was specifically designed for a variable pitch prop. So those, at least, are connected topics.
You don’t need an inflight adjustable prop to get 20 extra knots of speed. All you need is to be able to use a little more powerful engine in the Rotax lineup. The trade-off is climb versus gph (SLSA is already at absurdly low levels of fuel burn around 5ghp avg). And neither is impacted much given the narrow envelope of SLSA…that is a 120ktas plane with a ceiling of 10k feet. The complexity of having a constant speed prop will sidetrack the more important things to get, namely more useful load and slight increase in cruise speed. Of course most can dream up a list of items that end up ruining the entire attempt to expand the class. The creep in capability is why we don’t have these things now…the feds won’t allow the class to become something else entirely approaching certified aircraft specs.
Excellent article, Dan!