http://www.flyinggators.com/news/LSA/SPrule.html

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

Also at:
PDF:
http://www.sportpilot.org/sportpilot_rule.pdf

WORD:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/rulemaking/SportPilotRule7_19.doc

Basically:

From PART 1-DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or
powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet
the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than--

(i) 660 pounds (300 kilograms) for lighter-than-air aircraft;

(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on
water; or

(iii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on
water.

(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of
not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea
level.

(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than 120 knots CAS for a
glider.

(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use
of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the
aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of
gravity.

(5) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the
pilot.

(6) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.

(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than
a powered glider.

(8) A fixed or autofeathering propeller system if a powered glider.

(9) A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a
gyroplane.

(10) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.

(11) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on
water or a glider.

(12) Fixed or repositionable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft
intended for operation on water.

(13) Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.



And from 61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement and duration

[A medical is not required for gliders and ballons - RWI]

(c) Operations requiring either a medical certificate or U.S. driver's
license. (1) A person must hold and possess either a valid medical
certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter or a current and valid U.S.
driver's license when exercising the privileges of-

(i) A student pilot certificate while seeking sport pilot privileges in a
light-sport aircraft other than a glider or balloon;

(ii) A sport pilot certificate in a light-sport aircraft other than a glider
or balloon; or

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating while acting
as pilot in command or serving as a required flight crewmember of a
light-sport aircraft other than a glider or balloon.

(2) A person using a current and valid U.S. driver's license to meet the
requirements of this paragraph must--

(i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's
U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to
the operation of a motor vehicle;

(ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class
airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application
(if the person has applied for a medical certificate);

(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if
the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most
recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate
withdrawn; and

(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would
make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

Rich

"Richard Isakson" > wrote in message
...

> (ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class
> airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent
application
> (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
>
> Rich

This is the part that affects me. I applied for a third-class about four
years ago while taking lessons. However, the FAA asked for information from
my cardiologist about my blood pressure medicine. He ignored their specific
points and wrote a rambling memo that I was fit to fly. Because I had
stopped taking lessons (we bought a house and the money got spent on silly
stuff like mortgage), I never submitted his memo. The FAA never denied me
and until a year or so ago the FAA web site showed I had submitted an
application with not additional action.

However, because I once submitted an application -the rule says "...most
recent application" - I have to get a third-class medical. Then, I can let
it lapse and start using a driver's license to fly as a sport pilot. But,
if I had bought the house a few months earlier, never applied for a
third-class medical, I could declare myself fit to fly as a sport pilot as
long as I have a driver's license.

I think someone else called this "government goo".

-cj

So you're OK to be in the other lane passing within six feet of me at a
closing rate of 120 miles an hour and repeating the event a hundred or so
times an hour but not to be off buzzing around over a field several thousand
feet away in a much lighter and more crushable machine.

Yup, makes about as much sense as anything else the government does.

--

Roger Long



"cj" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Richard Isakson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > (ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class
> > airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent
> application
> > (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
> >
> > Rich
>
> This is the part that affects me. I applied for a third-class about four
> years ago while taking lessons. However, the FAA asked for information
from
> my cardiologist about my blood pressure medicine. He ignored their
specific
> points and wrote a rambling memo that I was fit to fly. Because I had
> stopped taking lessons (we bought a house and the money got spent on silly
> stuff like mortgage), I never submitted his memo. The FAA never denied me
> and until a year or so ago the FAA web site showed I had submitted an
> application with not additional action.
>
> However, because I once submitted an application -the rule says "...most
> recent application" - I have to get a third-class medical. Then, I can
let
> it lapse and start using a driver's license to fly as a sport pilot. But,
> if I had bought the house a few months earlier, never applied for a
> third-class medical, I could declare myself fit to fly as a sport pilot as
> long as I have a driver's license.
>
> I think someone else called this "government goo".
>
> -cj
>
>

I have heard conflicting reports as to whether the Ercoupe 416C would be
eligible as a LSA or not. Anyone know for sure? I see it listed as having a
t/o weight of 1260 lb. under the 1320 lb. in the newly published FAA
rules...

--

Dr. Bob Lade
Lade's Internet Service, Inc.
637 N.E. 15th Court
Cape Coral FL 33909
www.BobLade.com
239-772-1663 v/f 239-560-1631 m
"Gilan" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> http://www.flyinggators.com/news/LSA/SPrule.html
>
> --
> Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
> See ya on Sport Aircraft group
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
>

I meant the Ercoupe 415C, of course <g>.

--

Dr. Bob Lade
Lade's Internet Service, Inc.
637 N.E. 15th Court
Cape Coral FL 33909
www.BobLade.com
239-772-1663 v/f 239-560-1631 m
"Dr. Bob Lade" > wrote in message
.. .
> I have heard conflicting reports as to whether the Ercoupe 416C would be
> eligible as a LSA or not. Anyone know for sure? I see it listed as having
a
> t/o weight of 1260 lb. under the 1320 lb. in the newly published FAA
> rules...
>
> --
>
> Dr. Bob Lade
> Lade's Internet Service, Inc.
> 637 N.E. 15th Court
> Cape Coral FL 33909
> www.BobLade.com
> 239-772-1663 v/f 239-560-1631 m
> "Gilan" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > http://www.flyinggators.com/news/LSA/SPrule.html
> >
> > --
> > Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
> > See ya on Sport Aircraft group
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
> >
> >
>
>
>

"Dr. Bob Lade" > wrote in
:

> I meant the Ercoupe 415C, of course <g>.
>
> --
>
> Dr. Bob Lade
> Lade's Internet Service, Inc.
> 637 N.E. 15th Court
> Cape Coral FL 33909
> www.BobLade.com
> 239-772-1663 v/f 239-560-1631 m
> "Dr. Bob Lade" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> I have heard conflicting reports as to whether the Ercoupe 416C would
>> be eligible as a LSA or not. Anyone know for sure? I see it listed as
>> having
> a
>> t/o weight of 1260 lb. under the 1320 lb. in the newly published FAA
>> rules...
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dr. Bob Lade
>> Lade's Internet Service, Inc.
>> 637 N.E. 15th Court
>> Cape Coral FL 33909
>> www.BobLade.com

Looks to me like your in....

Stall speed (clean) 48mph

LSA stall speed 45knots = approx 48.6 mph

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"ET" > wrote in message
...
>
> LSA stall speed 45knots = approx 48.6 mph

That would be closer to 51.7864910 mph.

Rich "The Devil is in the details" S.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:06:55 -0700, "Richard Isakson" >
wrote:

>(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on
>water; or

Cool...almost a hundred pounds higher than they originally were talking
about. This lets the Ercoupes in. If you look at EAA's old "These planes
don't qualify" section on this page...

<http://www.sportpilot.org/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html>

....you'll see there are some Aeroncas, T-Carts, and even a J-3 model that
now qualify.

>(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use
>of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the
>aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of
>gravity.

Cool, too...they got rid of the "39 knots in landing configuration/45 knots
without deployment, etc." criteria.

>(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than
>a powered glider.

Guess I'll give up on a cockpit-adjustable prop for the 'ol Fly Baby.

>And from 61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement and duration
>
>(2) A person using a current and valid U.S. driver's license to meet the
>requirements of this paragraph must--
>
>(ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class
>airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application
>(if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
>
>(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if
>the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most
>recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate
>withdrawn; and
>
>(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would
>make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

That's a bit irritating. I'm sure we all know guys who were hoping to be
able to step back into the cockpit with a "Driver's license medical". Then
again, there's the enforcement issue...if one is ramp-checked, all one
needs to show the guy is a driver's license. Inspectors are not likely to
have a list of folks who have lost medicals in the past. If someone
crashes, of course, the FAA will then find out.

I suspect dropping the medical requirement entirely was farther than the
FAA was willing to go. It may be, after some years of Sport Pilot
operation, that the EAA may be able to petition to have the rule amended
(which should be a LOT easier than having the basic process instituted in
the first place.) Unfortunately, they're just as likely to have a batch
of statistics pointing the OTHER way-- "...accident pilot was taking
medication for [heart problems, depression, diabetes, etc.] and was
operating illegally under the Sport Pilot provisions...." Too many of
those, and the FAA will probably re-institute the Class 3 medical
requirement.

On the whole, though, I'm pleased. This is a rule for the *future* of
aviation... we'll get a lot more young folks into the sport, with
lower-cost airplanes and, for newcomers at least, "a drivers-license
medical." But like most of us, I have buddies who'll be disappointed.

I'm trying to decide whether I'll bother to renew my 3rd class, when it's
due. The consequences of not passing are pretty severe. Then again, I
have to rent a plane for a BFR every two years. Won't be able to get a 172
and instructor unless I *do* have a medical, unless the local flight school
has LSAs in the line by the time I'm due....

Ron Wanttaja

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:34:05 -0700, "cj" > wrote:

>However, because I once submitted an application -the rule says "...most
>recent application" - I have to get a third-class medical.

The FAA is saying that you will need a "special issuance" and that
they will "work with" you on this. I don't know if that's good news or
bad, but it sounds as if they are willing to be more lenient this time
around.

There are several views on this posted at www.aero-news.net

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

>
>It's not too difficult to get a medical if you are taking blood pressure
>medication. You mainly have to show that your blood pressure is under
>control and your system is tolerating the drug well. The extra tests do
>drive the cost up though,

Most of the FAA's prohibited BP medicines bring a smile to the face of
the family doctor, who says that nobody ever prescribes them any more.

I take Diovan and the one with the long name, HCTZ I think it is
(cheap! wow! $1.85 for 90 days!). I used to take Cardura along with
the Diovan. I required no tests, only a statement from my doctor with
a list of periodic BP readings (which I took at home and gave to him)
and a list of my prescriptions. The simpler this stuff is, the better.

I had a lengthy delay before the certificate came through, four months
I think. But my following two flight physicals were completed in the
flight surgeon's office.

Actually, the FAA now seems more interested in my exercise-induced
asthma than in my blood pressure. At next physical I am to submit a
"narrative" from my doctor on this subject.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

Actually, 45 knots = 51.75 mph, so it looks as if the 415C should be able to
have the SLA classification. That's a good thing, cuz many of the other
"eligible" a/c are tail-draggers. The castored main gear on the Ercoupe
should make a crabbed X-wind landing fairly easy (and necessary since
auto-coordination excludes slipping.)

--

Dr. Bob Lade
Lade's Internet Service, Inc.
637 N.E. 15th Court
Cape Coral FL 33909
www.BobLade.com
239-772-1663 v/f 239-560-1631 m
"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "Dr. Bob Lade" > wrote in
> :
>
> > I meant the Ercoupe 415C, of course <g>.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dr. Bob Lade
> > Lade's Internet Service, Inc.
> > 637 N.E. 15th Court
> > Cape Coral FL 33909
> > www.BobLade.com
> > 239-772-1663 v/f 239-560-1631 m
> > "Dr. Bob Lade" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> I have heard conflicting reports as to whether the Ercoupe 416C would
> >> be eligible as a LSA or not. Anyone know for sure? I see it listed as
> >> having
> > a
> >> t/o weight of 1260 lb. under the 1320 lb. in the newly published FAA
> >> rules...
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Dr. Bob Lade
> >> Lade's Internet Service, Inc.
> >> 637 N.E. 15th Court
> >> Cape Coral FL 33909
> >> www.BobLade.com
>
> Looks to me like your in....
>
> Stall speed (clean) 48mph
>
> LSA stall speed 45knots = approx 48.6 mph
>
> --
> ET >:)
>
>
> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> fools."---- Douglas Adams
>

Somewhat on topic, is it possible to change (lower) the gross weight
of a production aircraft? Example a piper clipper pa-16 is of course a
4 seater empty wight usually around 900 lbs, if I removed the back
seat and flew it at 1320 lbs or under (my wife and I together weigh
300 lbs or so)? It would meet all the other criteria vne 120 knots or
less, cruise and max speed <120 kts.

Thanks,
Dave

"Rich S." > wrote in message >...
> "ET" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > LSA stall speed 45knots = approx 48.6 mph
>
> That would be closer to 51.7864910 mph.
>
> Rich "The Devil is in the details" S.

dave wrote:
>
> Somewhat on topic, is it possible to change (lower) the gross weight
> of a production aircraft?

Sure. Recertify it.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

On 21 Jul 2004 07:03:23 -0700, (dave) wrote:

>Somewhat on topic, is it possible to change (lower) the gross weight
>of a production aircraft? Example a piper clipper pa-16 is of course a
>4 seater empty wight usually around 900 lbs, if I removed the back
>seat and flew it at 1320 lbs or under (my wife and I together weigh
>300 lbs or so)? It would meet all the other criteria vne 120 knots or
>less, cruise and max speed <120 kts.

George Patterson had the right answer, for production aircraft or completed
homebuilts ("Recertify it"). But one could certainly make a homebuilt
version of the Clipper and do exactly what you describe.

For existing homebuilt models that do NOT nominally meet the requirements,
this might get interesting. Wag-Aero lists their "Sport Trainer" (J-3 Cub
clone) at 1400 pounds gross, but with a 720-pound empty weight. The
aircraft's utility will be barely affected if a builder licenses a new
Sport Trainer at 1320 pounds gross. Presumably, the DAR won't care, as
long as the builder licenses the plane in the conventional
Experimental/Amateur-Built category (which still would allow a Sport Pilot
to fly it).

Yet, of course, a guy with an identical aircraft licensed prior to the
start of the Sport Pilot regs will need a Private certificate...since he
probably licensed his plane at 1400 pounds.

To quote Captain Blood: "Faith, but it's a cruel world, entirely..."

Like the issues regarding guys who previous lost their third class
medicals, the transition period is going to be messy.

Ron Wanttaja

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
:

>
>
> dave wrote:
>>
>> Somewhat on topic, is it possible to change (lower) the gross weight
>> of a production aircraft?
>
> Sure. Recertify it.
>
> George Patterson
> In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony
> assault. In Tennessee, it's evangelism.
>

NO,

Well, YES, actually, but it will not do any good for Sport Pilot.

The FAA added the following to avoid just such a thing: "Light-sport
aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that,
since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:"

The words "since it's original certification, has continued" is your
problem. The same for the ercoupe 415 d's that used to be "c's". You
can't take them back to a "c" and fly under sport (and be legal). I
suppose it's unlikely that a ramp check will get you ... but if the ramp
checkers start carrying laptops with N-number databases in them... maybe
you would get caught.

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yet, of course, a guy with an identical aircraft licensed prior to the
> start of the Sport Pilot regs will need a Private certificate...since he
> probably licensed his plane at 1400 pounds.

Interesting scenario, Ron. As far as I know there are only two places where
the aircraft weigt is recorded. One is the data plate which displays the
maximum gross weight and the other is the W&B form. The max gross weight is
builder's choice - I have no idea if it is legal to change this figure. The
W&B form is a "living" document and MUST be changed to reflect the current
W&B of the airplane.

Rich "Calories, it's all about calories" S.

"Dr. Bob Lade" > wrote:

>Actually, 45 knots = 51.75 mph, so it looks as if the 415C should be able to
>have the SLA classification.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, NOT in the U.S.A.. [Pun intended]


Since 1959, the U.S. has used 6,076.115 feet
as the international standard for a nautical mile,
making 45 knots closer to = 51.78507102 mph.

However, there are other standards for a n.m.
Therefore... YMMV. <g>


Barnyard - PhD challenged - BOb

ET wrote:
>
> The words "since it's original certification, has continued" is your
> problem.

Ah, yes. Careless reading on my part.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

"Dr. Bob Lade" > writes:

> The castored main gear on the Ercoupe

Ercoupes don't have castoring (swiveling, turning, rotating) main gear
(legs). They are simply robust enough to take the side forces
generated by a crabbed landing.

Bob Fry wrote:

>"Dr. Bob Lade" > writes:
>
>> The castored main gear on the Ercoupe
>
>Ercoupes don't have castoring (swiveling, turning, rotating) main gear
>(legs). They are simply robust enough to take the side forces
>generated by a crabbed landing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right you are, Mr. Fry.
The gear design is quite similar to the Beech Mouseketeer, yet.....
some folks just can't believe the Ercoupe trailing links don't swivel.


Barnyard BOb - ex 415C owner

AAARGGH...one was enough. Two is too many.

Castoring means you are extracting the oil of the castor bean.

Castering means that something swivels.


Jim



Bob Fry >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->"Dr. Bob Lade" > writes:
->
->> The castored main gear on the Ercoupe
->
->Ercoupes don't have castoring (swiveling, turning, rotating) main gear
->(legs). They are simply robust enough to take the side forces
->generated by a crabbed landing.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:28:01 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>AAARGGH...one was enough. Two is too many.
>
>Castoring means you are extracting the oil of the castor bean.
>
>Castering means that something swivels.
>
>
>Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Beg to differ, Jim.

If you check into this far enough,
you will discover BOTH spellings are in use.


Dictionary.com sez.....

1. One that casts: a caster of nets.
2. also cas·tor (kstr) A small wheel on a swivel, attached under a
piece of furniture or other heavy object to make it easier to move.


ALSO...

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=11816&dict=CALD

caster
noun (ALSO castor)
a small wheel, usually one of a set, that is fixed to the bottom (of
the leg) of a piece of furniture so that it can be moved easily



Barnyard BOb --




>
>
>
>Bob Fry >
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>->"Dr. Bob Lade" > writes:
>->
>->> The castored main gear on the Ercoupe
>->
>->Ercoupes don't have castoring (swiveling, turning, rotating) main gear
>->(legs). They are simply robust enough to take the side forces
>->generated by a crabbed landing.
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
> I'm trying to decide whether I'll bother to renew my 3rd class, when it's
> due. The consequences of not passing are pretty severe. Then again, I
> have to rent a plane for a BFR every two years. Won't be able to get a
172
> and instructor unless I *do* have a medical, unless the local flight
school
> has LSAs in the line by the time I'm due....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I'm sure there are going to be people around with a 2 seat LSA, that will
let you borrow it for the BFR. Good bunch of people, aviators. :-)

Jim in NC

"Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...

>
> Beg to differ, Jim.
>
> If you check into this far enough,
> you will discover BOTH spellings are in use.

So Jaun's fantom BD-5 could be casterated OR castorated?

Rich "Give 'im a bilateral orchisotomy, doc!" S.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:13:56 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>>
>> I'm trying to decide whether I'll bother to renew my 3rd class, when it's
>> due. The consequences of not passing are pretty severe. Then again, I
>> have to rent a plane for a BFR every two years. Won't be able to get a
>172
>> and instructor unless I *do* have a medical, unless the local flight
>> school has LSAs in the line by the time I'm due....
>
>I'm sure there are going to be people around with a 2 seat LSA, that will
>let you borrow it for the BFR. Good bunch of people, aviators. :-)

I've had several instructor friends offer to administer BFRs for me. But
the problem is, I like to take BFRs with someone I *don't* know. That way
my other friends don't find out how lousy a pilot I am. :-)

I take BFRs a bit more seriously than I ought to, really. I cram on the
regs before going in for the ground stuff, for instance. Last BFR, the
instructor (usual transient at the local FBO) seemed put-out that I hadn't
brought a copy of the FARS so I could look up the answers to his questions.
He gave me one...which rested, unopened, under my folded hands during the
whole ground refresher.

Flight-wise, I really do prefer the instructor is someone I don't know.
Not completely sure why; it very well might reluctance to look bad in front
of a friend. Then again, I probably have an easier time. My instructor
friends all have beaucoup hours and experience, while I always seem to get
the guy at the FBO who just got his CFI the previous week and has barely
over the FAA-minimum time. Every one... EVERY one...for the past eight
years has pulled the "engine failure" routine over a small grass strip just
east of town, usually when the airport is on their side of the airplane.
Said grass strip is one I take the Fly Baby into on a regular basis, and
unlike the CFIs' usual customers, I know DARN well where it's at.

As far as borrowing someone else's plane, I hesitate to do that since their
insurance won't be valid with me drivin' em. Makes me nervous.

I'm just a mass of neuroses, ain't I? :-)

I figured out what I'm going to do. My 3rd class expires in November, my
BFR in February, but I'll take my BFR early, before the medical expires.
That'll give me two years to dig up an LSA ride.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> The consequences of not passing are pretty severe. Then again, I
> have to rent a plane for a BFR every two years. Won't be able to get a 172
> and instructor unless I *do* have a medical, unless the local flight school
> has LSAs in the line by the time I'm due....

It is possible to get a BFR in a sing-seat airplane, the CFI has to OBSERVE
flying portion. The glider guys do it all the time. It may even still be
possible to get a check ride in a single-seater...anybody know for sure?

As a practical matter, you could do some flying with an instructor in a 152 to
aquire some mutual comfort factor and then he/she could observe you doing some
specified manuvers in your single seater (as long as your BFR has not yet
expired!).

Vaughn

Vaughn wrote:
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The consequences of not passing are pretty severe. Then again, I
>>have to rent a plane for a BFR every two years. Won't be able to get a 172
>>and instructor unless I *do* have a medical, unless the local flight school
>>has LSAs in the line by the time I'm due....
>
>
> It is possible to get a BFR in a sing-seat airplane, the CFI has to OBSERVE
> flying portion. The glider guys do it all the time. It may even still be
> possible to get a check ride in a single-seater...anybody know for sure?
>
> As a practical matter, you could do some flying with an instructor in a 152 to
> aquire some mutual comfort factor and then he/she could observe you doing some
> specified manuvers in your single seater (as long as your BFR has not yet
> expired!).
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
>
That is not true anymore, you cannot get a flight review in a single seat airplane.

Jerry

Barnyard BOb - > wrote in
:

>
> "Dr. Bob Lade" > wrote:
>
>>Actually, 45 knots = 51.75 mph, so it looks as if the 415C should be
>>able to have the SLA classification.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Actually, NOT in the U.S.A.. [Pun intended]
>
>
> Since 1959, the U.S. has used 6,076.115 feet
> as the international standard for a nautical mile,
> making 45 knots closer to = 51.78507102 mph.
>
> However, there are other standards for a n.m.
> Therefore... YMMV. <g>
>
>
> Barnyard - PhD challenged - BOb


sorry, my first calculation was Knots with tax (grin). Or maybe I'm just
not tying them right.

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Ron,do we still need a bi-annual?

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:06:55 -0700, "Richard Isakson" >
> wrote:
>
> >(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on
> >water; or
>
> Cool...almost a hundred pounds higher than they originally were talking
> about. This lets the Ercoupes in. If you look at EAA's old "These planes
> don't qualify" section on this page...
>
> <http://www.sportpilot.org/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html>
>
> ...you'll see there are some Aeroncas, T-Carts, and even a J-3 model that
> now qualify.
>
So here's a question. Many certificated aircraft have multiple gross
weights, one for normal category, and another for utility. If the
normal category gross weight is over 1320 pounds, and the utility
category weight is under, can I fly it as a LSA if I operate it only
in the "utility" category?

BTW, the rule specifies only "maximum takeoff weight" less than 1320
lbs, not "maximum *certificated* takeoff weight" In the preamble text,
it defines "maximum weight" as empty weight+passengers+baggage+full
fuel. Can I compute my own "maximum takeoff weight", based on the
flight requirements?

On 12 Aug 2004 19:54:32 -0700, (Doug Haluza) wrote:

>So here's a question. Many certificated aircraft have multiple gross
>weights, one for normal category, and another for utility. If the
>normal category gross weight is over 1320 pounds, and the utility
>category weight is under, can I fly it as a LSA if I operate it only
>in the "utility" category?
>
>BTW, the rule specifies only "maximum takeoff weight" less than 1320
>lbs, not "maximum *certificated* takeoff weight" In the preamble text,
>it defines "maximum weight" as empty weight+passengers+baggage+full
>fuel. Can I compute my own "maximum takeoff weight", based on the
>flight requirements?

That's probably one of those "niche" items that the FAA is going to have to
figure out, along with how to determine if a given homebuilt meets the
definition.

After all, the requirement is that the airplane have no more than two
seats, *not* that no more than two people can be carried. That implies
that the split-category airplane cannot be flown by a Sport Pilot, as the
plane itself is legally capable of flying at greater than 1320 pounds.

But me? I'd fly it, and let the FAA make the determination if they want.

Ron Wanttaja

"Doug Haluza" wrote ...
> So here's a question. Many certificated aircraft have multiple gross
> weights, one for normal category, and another for utility. If the
> normal category gross weight is over 1320 pounds, and the utility
> category weight is under, can I fly it as a LSA if I operate it only
> in the "utility" category?
>
> BTW, the rule specifies only "maximum takeoff weight" less than 1320
> lbs, not "maximum *certificated* takeoff weight" In the preamble text,
> it defines "maximum weight" as empty weight+passengers+baggage+full
> fuel. Can I compute my own "maximum takeoff weight", based on the
> flight requirements?

From FAR 1.1 General definitions
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, that, since its original
certification, has continued to meet the following:

(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than--

(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on
water; or

As I read this, your airplane has had a max TO weight greater than 1320
pounds and therefore doesn't qualify as an LSA. The FAA had to limit the
weight somewhere and they don't want you to be temped to cheat.



Rich

"Rich S." > wrote in message >...
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yet, of course, a guy with an identical aircraft licensed prior to the
> > start of the Sport Pilot regs will need a Private certificate...since he
> > probably licensed his plane at 1400 pounds.
>
> Interesting scenario, Ron. As far as I know there are only two places where
> the aircraft weigt is recorded. One is the data plate which displays the
> maximum gross weight and the other is the W&B form. The max gross weight is
> builder's choice - I have no idea if it is legal to change this figure. The
> W&B form is a "living" document and MUST be changed to reflect the current
> W&B of the airplane.
>
> Rich "Calories, it's all about calories" S.

Why not certify it with multiple gross weights, one for LSA and one
for "normal" experimental. Type certified aircraft are often certified
with different max gross for normal and utility catagory.

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Why not certify it with multiple gross weights, one for LSA and one
> for "normal" experimental. Type certified aircraft are often certified
> with different max gross for normal and utility catagory.

When speaking of an airplane in the "Experimental - amateur built" category,
there is no requirement I can think of which requires "certification" at any
particular weight. The builder determines the maximum gross weight for the
aircraft (perhaps through the examination of the entrails of a sheep) and
then etches that number on the data plate. I know of no rule which says that
number cannot be adjusted if the builder wants. It is quite possible that
flight testing could reveal the sheep was in error and the darn thing won't
get off the ground at gross weight.

To quote BOb, "If I'm wrong, never mind".

Rich "Still dieting" S.