Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't appear
> to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.

If not, that would certainly limit its usefulness as a trainer. What is
involved is getting a new airframe IFR certified?

Vaughn

On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>
> Matt

Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
-Robert

I really doubt it. The new O-200D will not be a certified engine so I
doubt if Continental will allow that in its operating limitations. Even
more limiting, the useful load of the SkyCatcher is right at the minimum
allowable useful load for and LSA by ASTM. As such, they probably won't
have be able to add the back up electrical system needed for a glass
panel used in IMC.

If you would like a really nice Cessna-like and IFR certified LSA,
checkout the Tecnam family. They offer full IFR LSA aircraft, either
glass or traditional, your choice.

http://www.tecnamaircraft.com/Tecnam_Aircraft.htm

This company has been building airplanes for over 50 years. We have an
Echo on the line and boy is it a sweet and stable flyer. It has the
handling characteristics needed in an IFR bird. Monstrous useful load
too, especially compared to the SkyCatcher, which allows for long range
tanks, a pretty much prerequisite for flying hard IFR.

Helen
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Helen Woods
Chesapeake Sport Pilot
Affordable Flight Training, Rentals, and Sales
(410) 490-1424
www.chesapeakesportpilot.com

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>
> Matt

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<br>
Helen Woods<br>
Chesapeake Sport Pilot<br>
Affordable Flight Training, Rentals, and Sales<br>
(410) 490-1424<br>
www.chesapeakesportpilot.com<br>

Vaughn Simon wrote:

>
> If not, that would certainly limit its usefulness as a trainer.

Not with regards to training sport pilots.

"Dave S" > wrote in message
...
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
>>
>> If not, that would certainly limit its usefulness as a trainer.
>
> Not with regards to training sport pilots.

(One is tempted to say "no ****", but that would not be polite.) To
earn its keep at a flight school/FBO, any trainer needs to be capable of more
than teaching sport pilots.

Vaughn

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ...
>
> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.


It's my reading of the rules that NONE of the new LSA built planes are FAA
CERTIFIED. They are built to an ASTM "industry consensous" standard. The FAA
has removed themselves from the mirco level regulation, created instead a
LSA framework rule, and it's basically "whatever the manufacturer allows" is
OK.

So while the original Diamond (2 seat) Katana with the Rotax engine was FAA
certified VFR day/nite, its lack of any vac system prevented it from getting
FAA night certification.

The new LSAs have access to a pair of 912 series engines from Rotax. One of
which Rotax allowed for nite ops and the other one it did not, per its ops
manual. The LSA manufacturers must State in their ops manual that nite ops
is permitted by verifying with their component suppliers (who have some sort
of veto power). Once the manufacturer says nite ops is OK (as bound by the
ASTM), then just check the FARs part 91 minimums and go.

Tecnam in leading the new ASTM subcommittee to study IFR requirements and
they are working toward a "consensous standard". Once they agree on a
standard, and the Manufacturers state in their Ops Manuals that the LSA can
operate in IMC (and they need buy-in from their major component suppliers),
the OPINION of some is that the LSA will then be abal to operate in IMC
under IFR by meeting the FARpart 91 minimums.

The FAA has yet to speak up on this. Stay tuned.

Actually, both 912's are currently night legal. (Rotax changed that
designation on the 912ULS after the LSA market came out.) Only the
912S, the one on the Katana, is IFR legal though. Also, it is my
understandig the the 912S does support a vaccum system, although the ULS
does not.

Also, in addition to the part 91 night equipment list, ASTM has a night
list of its own which includes some sort of attitude indicator and panel
lights.

Tecnams are currently available both night and IFR legal and a very nice
planes.

Helen

Mike Isaksen wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ...
>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>
>
> It's my reading of the rules that NONE of the new LSA built planes are FAA
> CERTIFIED. They are built to an ASTM "industry consensous" standard. The FAA
> has removed themselves from the mirco level regulation, created instead a
> LSA framework rule, and it's basically "whatever the manufacturer allows" is
> OK.
>
> So while the original Diamond (2 seat) Katana with the Rotax engine was FAA
> certified VFR day/nite, its lack of any vac system prevented it from getting
> FAA night certification.
>
> The new LSAs have access to a pair of 912 series engines from Rotax. One of
> which Rotax allowed for nite ops and the other one it did not, per its ops
> manual. The LSA manufacturers must State in their ops manual that nite ops
> is permitted by verifying with their component suppliers (who have some sort
> of veto power). Once the manufacturer says nite ops is OK (as bound by the
> ASTM), then just check the FARs part 91 minimums and go.
>
> Tecnam in leading the new ASTM subcommittee to study IFR requirements and
> they are working toward a "consensous standard". Once they agree on a
> standard, and the Manufacturers state in their Ops Manuals that the LSA can
> operate in IMC (and they need buy-in from their major component suppliers),
> the OPINION of some is that the LSA will then be abal to operate in IMC
> under IFR by meeting the FARpart 91 minimums.
>
> The FAA has yet to speak up on this. Stay tuned.
>
>

LSAs are supposed to be VFR only. I can't find anywhere in the rules
that allow for an LSA to be IFR certified. If you find it let us
know. http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf

The Light-Sport Aircraft were not intended for complex operations.


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




On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>
> Matt

"Helen" wrote in message ...
> Actually, both 912's are currently night legal. (Rotax changed that
> designation on the 912ULS after the LSA market came out.)

OK, the two 912 series I actually meant was the 80hp and the 100hp. But
within the 100hp group I believe you are correct. Both the ULS and the S are
currently night legal. Do you recall when Rotax made the ULS night legal, I
don't think it had it the first summer that the LSAs hit? I think it was
recent.

Here's the ops manual (get your metric conv sheets out):
http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/pdf/dokus/d03925.pdf

And a service bulletin restricting fuel to <5% alcohol:
http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/pdf/dokus/d03830.pdf

> Only the 912S, the one on the Katana, is IFR legal though. Also, it is my
> understandig the the 912S does support a vaccum system, although the ULS
> does not.

I recall the first Rotax Katanas that hit the US were non-IFR cert?!?
You are correct about the Vac pump option on the new 912s.

> Also, in addition to the part 91 night equipment list, ASTM has a night
> list of its own which includes some sort of attitude indicator and panel
> lights.

But I don't believe the ASTM has even come out with a draft of the proposed
IMC operational standards. They may also be reaching well beyond their scope
as charged by the FAA. This is certainly an exciting and in flux issue.

> Tecnams are currently available both night and IFR legal and a very nice
> planes.

Tecnam do indeed make a nice series of LSAs. Heck, with the moveable seat
even I can fit inside. And they are still the only LSA I've seen with
defrost to the windshield, something I consider nessesary when it gets cold
out and 2 pilots can fog up the inside pretty quick. But even they have yet
to offer pitot heat. And I have not been able to find were the prop
manufacturer states their wood/comp prop can be used in IMC. I would love to
hear about someone who actually filed and flew IFR in IMC (and willing to
give their real name).

What I do see is an effort by many LSA to equip to better than the FAR part
91 equipment minimums. And that then allows the FBO schools to use the LSA
to train for PPLs at 4 gallons per hour.

Like I said, stay tuned. This is an exciting time in LSAs, and the rules are
being written as we watch.

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>
>>> If not, that would certainly limit its usefulness as a trainer.
>> Not with regards to training sport pilots.
>
> (One is tempted to say "no ****", but that would not be polite.) To
> earn its keep at a flight school/FBO, any trainer needs to be capable of more
> than teaching sport pilots.
>
> Vaughn
>
>

Since we are being polite, I will politely point out that most private
pilot proficiency and training items can be accomplished in a light
sport aircraft that is equipped only to LSA requirements.

Exceptions being instrument flight training and night training.

Dave

wrote:
> LSAs are supposed to be VFR only. I can't find anywhere in the rules
> that allow for an LSA to be IFR certified. If you find it let us
> know. http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf
>
> The Light-Sport Aircraft were not intended for complex operations.
>
>

Gilan, A fully certified airplane can be used by an LSA pilot provided
it also meets LSA requirements (weight, speed, etc). If it incidentally
also has lights for night flight, or instrumentation for IFR, that
doesn't prohibit a sport pilot from using the plane within the limits of
their sport pilot privileges.

Even the current Continental Katana's are VFR only. I heard somewhere
is has to do with how the composite structure would dissipate lightning
if struck. I think they added some metal in the structure to address
this on the Star.

Sorry, I don't remember when the night legal change came out.

I don't think it would be hard to find someone who would take a Tecnam
IFR. I would take ours into the scud if it was an IFR version. It's
every bit as stable as my C172 only I don't have to worry about carb ice
in the clouds like I do with my 172.

Helen

Mike Isaksen wrote:
> "Helen" wrote in message ...
>> Actually, both 912's are currently night legal. (Rotax changed that
>> designation on the 912ULS after the LSA market came out.)
>
> OK, the two 912 series I actually meant was the 80hp and the 100hp. But
> within the 100hp group I believe you are correct. Both the ULS and the S are
> currently night legal. Do you recall when Rotax made the ULS night legal, I
> don't think it had it the first summer that the LSAs hit? I think it was
> recent.
>
> Here's the ops manual (get your metric conv sheets out):
> http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/pdf/dokus/d03925.pdf
>
> And a service bulletin restricting fuel to <5% alcohol:
> http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/pdf/dokus/d03830.pdf
>
>> Only the 912S, the one on the Katana, is IFR legal though. Also, it is my
>> understandig the the 912S does support a vaccum system, although the ULS
>> does not.
>
> I recall the first Rotax Katanas that hit the US were non-IFR cert?!?
> You are correct about the Vac pump option on the new 912s.
>
>> Also, in addition to the part 91 night equipment list, ASTM has a night
>> list of its own which includes some sort of attitude indicator and panel
>> lights.
>
> But I don't believe the ASTM has even come out with a draft of the proposed
> IMC operational standards. They may also be reaching well beyond their scope
> as charged by the FAA. This is certainly an exciting and in flux issue.
>
>> Tecnams are currently available both night and IFR legal and a very nice
>> planes.
>
> Tecnam do indeed make a nice series of LSAs. Heck, with the moveable seat
> even I can fit inside. And they are still the only LSA I've seen with
> defrost to the windshield, something I consider nessesary when it gets cold
> out and 2 pilots can fog up the inside pretty quick. But even they have yet
> to offer pitot heat. And I have not been able to find were the prop
> manufacturer states their wood/comp prop can be used in IMC. I would love to
> hear about someone who actually filed and flew IFR in IMC (and willing to
> give their real name).
>
> What I do see is an effort by many LSA to equip to better than the FAR part
> 91 equipment minimums. And that then allows the FBO schools to use the LSA
> to train for PPLs at 4 gallons per hour.
>
> Like I said, stay tuned. This is an exciting time in LSAs, and the rules are
> being written as we watch.
>
>

The VFR only limitation is strictly on the light sport airman not the
light sport aircraft. You aren't going to find this anywhere in the
FARs because most of these planes are not certified by the FAA, but by
ASTM.

Here's a good article that will explain it to you, Note: Since the
article was written the 912ULS has been approved for night ops.

http://www.sportpilot.org/news/051013_ifr.html

Helen

wrote:
> LSAs are supposed to be VFR only. I can't find anywhere in the rules
> that allow for an LSA to be IFR certified. If you find it let us
> know. http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf
>
> The Light-Sport Aircraft were not intended for complex operations.
>
>
> Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
> See ya on Sport Aircraft group
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>>
>> Matt
>
>

Helen wrote:
> Even the current Continental Katana's are VFR only. I heard somewhere
> is has to do with how the composite structure would dissipate lightning
> if struck. I think they added some metal in the structure to address
> this on the Star.
>
> Sorry, I don't remember when the night legal change came out.
>
> I don't think it would be hard to find someone who would take a Tecnam
> IFR. I would take ours into the scud if it was an IFR version. It's
> every bit as stable as my C172 only I don't have to worry about carb ice
> in the clouds like I do with my 172.

Is the Tecnam all aluminum? I'd be worried about a composite airplane
taking a lightning hit if it doesn't have the embedded metal mesh, etc.

Matt

Helen wrote:
> The VFR only limitation is strictly on the light sport airman not the
> light sport aircraft. You aren't going to find this anywhere in the
> FARs because most of these planes are not certified by the FAA, but by
> ASTM.

Are you sure about this? I thought the FAA still had to certify them,
just that they will certify any that meet the ASTM standard.

Matt

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
> -Robert

There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR certified.
http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html

On Oct 15, 6:24 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
> >> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>
> >> Matt
>
> > Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
> > -Robert
>
> There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR certified.http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html

So then I assume the pilot would need a current class 3 medical,
correct?

-Robert

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:04:26 -0000, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Oct 15, 6:24 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> > >> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
> > >> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
> >
> > >> Matt
> >
> > > Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
> > > -Robert
> >
> > There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR certified.http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html
>
> So then I assume the pilot would need a current class 3 medical,
> correct?

Correct, but only when performing those tasks that require use of a Recreational
or higher license. A Sport Pilot can climb into the airplane and fly day VFR,
but if he's going to go on the gauges he needs the appropriate license and
rating (and medical to go with the license).

The FAA made a big terminology mistake with the new rules; they use the same
term for a *definition* as for an aircraft certification category. Any aircraft
meeting the 14 CFR Part 1 definition for "Light Sport Aircraft" can be flown by
a pilot exercising Sport Pilot privileges, whether it's a Private pilot with an
expired medical, or a person with the new Sport Pilot rating. This definition
is summarized at:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/sportpilot.jpg

However, the FAA also added "Light Sport Aircraft" as a certification category,
both as "Special" and "Experimental." These are aircraft that comply with the
ASTM standards. There's nothing that I know of that precludes aircraft in these
two categories from flying IFR if properly equipped AND with a pilot with
appropriate ratings at the controls. The ASTM standard has a required minimum
for instruments and equipment (which, in fact, requires less instruments than
Part 91 for day VFR) but does not define a maximum.

Ron Wanttaja

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
>> -Robert
>
> There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR certified.
> http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html
Ya know, I can't imagine spending an hour on a seven mile final in IMC. :~(

On Oct 15, 10:27 am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> > So then I assume the pilot would need a current class 3 medical,
> > correct?
>
> Correct, but only when performing those tasks that require use of a Recreational
> or higher license. A Sport Pilot can climb into the airplane and fly day VFR,
> but if he's going to go on the gauges he needs the appropriate license and
> rating (and medical to go with the license).

In this case the task of flying IFR requires at least a private rating
so a class 3 medical seems to be required.

> The FAA made a big terminology mistake with the new rules; they use the same
> term for a *definition* as for an aircraft certification category. Any aircraft
> meeting the 14 CFR Part 1 definition for "Light Sport Aircraft" can be flown by
> a pilot exercising Sport Pilot privileges, whether it's a Private pilot with an
> expired medical, or a person with the new Sport Pilot rating. This definition
> is summarized at:

I understand that. In fact that was my point. A LSA can be IFR
certified but in order to fly it a pilot now must have a medical. So
the idea of letting your medical lapse when you get old and buying an
LSA only works for VFR. For IFR you have to exercise the priv of an
instrument rated private pilot and not the priv of a sport pilot.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Oct 15, 6:24 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It
>>>> doesn't appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web
>>>> site.
>>
>>>> Matt
>>
>>> Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
>>> -Robert
>>
>> There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR
>> certified.http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html
>
> So then I assume the pilot would need a current class 3 medical,
> correct?
>
> -Robert

And an IFR ticket. But the question wasn't about pilot certificates it was
about aircraft.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It
>>>> doesn't appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web
>>>> site. Matt
>>>
>>> Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
>>> -Robert
>>
>> There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR certified.
>> http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html
> Ya know, I can't imagine spending an hour on a seven mile final in
> IMC. :~(


Lots of actual time for the log book. :)

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 6:24 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>> On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It
>>>>> doesn't appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web
>>>>> site.
>>>>> Matt
>>>> Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
>>>> -Robert
>>> There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR
>>> certified.http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html
>> So then I assume the pilot would need a current class 3 medical,
>> correct?
>>
>> -Robert
>
> And an IFR ticket. But the question wasn't about pilot certificates it was
> about aircraft.
>
>

Yes. I'm instrument rated and was simply wondering what, if any, LSA's
could be flown IFR. I;m debating whether to buy one just for fun
flying, but with the capability to occasionally fly in IMC if needed. I
can buy a 20 year-old 182 that burns 12 GPH or I can buy a new LSA that
burns half that ... and is new!

Yes, I give up two seats, but most of my flying is alone anyway or with
one other person, so I'll just rent when I need four seats. That was
the rationale behind my question.

Matt

Almost entirely. Some of the control surfaces are fabric covered on the
older models and parts of the cowling have some composites. The rest is
aluminum.

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> Is the Tecnam all aluminum? I'd be worried about a composite airplane
> taking a lightning hit if it doesn't have the embedded metal mesh, etc.
>
> Matt

What the FAA issues is a Special Airworthiness Certificate rather than a
standard airworthiness certificate. While issued by the FAA, the
standards that must be met are all published by ASTM rather than the FAA.

Helen

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Helen wrote:
>> The VFR only limitation is strictly on the light sport airman not the
>> light sport aircraft. You aren't going to find this anywhere in the
>> FARs because most of these planes are not certified by the FAA, but by
>> ASTM.
>
> Are you sure about this? I thought the FAA still had to certify them,
> just that they will certify any that meet the ASTM standard.
>
> Matt

Helen wrote:
> What the FAA issues is a Special Airworthiness Certificate rather than a
> standard airworthiness certificate. While issued by the FAA, the
> standards that must be met are all published by ASTM rather than the FAA.
>
> Helen
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Helen wrote:
>>> The VFR only limitation is strictly on the light sport airman not the
>>> light sport aircraft. You aren't going to find this anywhere in the
>>> FARs because most of these planes are not certified by the FAA, but
>>> by ASTM.
>>
>> Are you sure about this? I thought the FAA still had to certify them,
>> just that they will certify any that meet the ASTM standard.
>>
>> Matt

Yes, understand. However, I still think it is the FAA that is really
certifying the aircraft even though they aren't developing the standards.

I don't think ASTM has any authority to certify aircraft, but I could be
wrong.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 6:24 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It
>>>>>> doesn't appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna
>>>>>> web site.
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>> Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
>>>>> -Robert
>>>> There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR
>>>> certified.http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html
>>> So then I assume the pilot would need a current class 3 medical,
>>> correct?
>>>
>>> -Robert
>>
>> And an IFR ticket. But the question wasn't about pilot certificates
>> it was about aircraft.
>>
>>
>
> Yes. I'm instrument rated and was simply wondering what, if any,
> LSA's could be flown IFR. I;m debating whether to buy one just for
> fun flying, but with the capability to occasionally fly in IMC if
> needed. I can buy a 20 year-old 182 that burns 12 GPH or I can buy a
> new LSA that burns half that ... and is new!
>
> Yes, I give up two seats, but most of my flying is alone anyway or
> with one other person, so I'll just rent when I need four seats. That was
> the rationale behind my question.
>
> Matt

Then follow that link up there the 601XLi might be just the plane for you.

On Oct 12, 7:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>
> Matt

You've gotten a lot of good replies here so it may be redundant, but I
did want to mention I saw the Skycatcher at OshKosh and asked one of
the Cessna salesdrones if it would be IFR capable and he said no.

Putting the technical and regulatory limitations aside, I doubt Cessna
would want to cannibalize 172 sales by offering a much cheaper IFR
alternative.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>> On Oct 15, 6:24 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>>>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It
>>>>>>> doesn't appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna
>>>>>>> web site.
>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>> Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
>>>>>> -Robert
>>>>> There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR
>>>>> certified.http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html
>>>> So then I assume the pilot would need a current class 3 medical,
>>>> correct?
>>>>
>>>> -Robert
>>> And an IFR ticket. But the question wasn't about pilot certificates
>>> it was about aircraft.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes. I'm instrument rated and was simply wondering what, if any,
>> LSA's could be flown IFR. I;m debating whether to buy one just for
>> fun flying, but with the capability to occasionally fly in IMC if
>> needed. I can buy a 20 year-old 182 that burns 12 GPH or I can buy a
>> new LSA that burns half that ... and is new!
>>
>> Yes, I give up two seats, but most of my flying is alone anyway or
>> with one other person, so I'll just rent when I need four seats. That was
>> the rationale behind my question.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Then follow that link up there the 601XLi might be just the plane for you.

Except that the wing is in the wrong place!

Matt

xyzzy wrote:
> On Oct 12, 7:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>>
>> Matt
>
> You've gotten a lot of good replies here so it may be redundant, but I
> did want to mention I saw the Skycatcher at OshKosh and asked one of
> the Cessna salesdrones if it would be IFR capable and he said no.
>
> Putting the technical and regulatory limitations aside, I doubt Cessna
> would want to cannibalize 172 sales by offering a much cheaper IFR
> alternative.
>

That is too bad, but certainly not surprising given the mission of the 162.

Matt

I think you are right.

Helen

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Helen wrote:
>> What the FAA issues is a Special Airworthiness Certificate rather than
>> a standard airworthiness certificate. While issued by the FAA, the
>> standards that must be met are all published by ASTM rather than the FAA.
>>
>> Helen
>>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Helen wrote:
>>>> The VFR only limitation is strictly on the light sport airman not
>>>> the light sport aircraft. You aren't going to find this anywhere in
>>>> the FARs because most of these planes are not certified by the FAA,
>>>> but by ASTM.
>>>
>>> Are you sure about this? I thought the FAA still had to certify
>>> them, just that they will certify any that meet the ASTM standard.
>>>
>>> Matt
>
> Yes, understand. However, I still think it is the FAA that is really
> certifying the aircraft even though they aren't developing the standards.
>
> I don't think ASTM has any authority to certify aircraft, but I could be
> wrong.
>
> Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

>>
>> Then follow that link up there the 601XLi might be just the plane
>> for you.
>
> Except that the wing is in the wrong place!
>
> Matt

Keep on the look out for the Zenith Patriot. It is going to be an LSA only
(no kit) high wing.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Then follow that link up there the 601XLi might be just the plane
>>> for you.
>> Except that the wing is in the wrong place!
>>
>> Matt
>
> Keep on the look out for the Zenith Patriot. It is going to be an LSA only
> (no kit) high wing.

This one here? http://www.sport.aero/index2.html

Looks interesting.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>> Then follow that link up there the 601XLi might be just the plane
>>>> for you.
>>> Except that the wing is in the wrong place!
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> Keep on the look out for the Zenith Patriot. It is going to be an
>> LSA only (no kit) high wing.
>
> This one here? http://www.sport.aero/index2.html
>
> Looks interesting.
>
> Matt

That's it. Please note the "150" in the name. As you can imagine that isn't
an accident.

If you are a Cessna pilot, you'll LOVE the Tecnam line of IFR available
LSAs. We have an Echo on the line. It is super stable, super roomy,
and has a super useful load. We have a 6'9" 310lb student taking
lessons in it with a 200lb instructor! It has the stability you need
for IFR, and useful load you need for long range tanks if you are going
to fly hard IFR. Best of all, you won't sacrifice roominess. It's
every bit as comfy as a 172. The IFR certified Rotax 912S burns about 4
gph, mo gas preferred. Available glass or traditional. The new 2008
panel is superb, available glass or traditional, and complete with cup
holder.

http://www.tecnamaircraft.com/Tecnam_Aircraft.htm
http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com/sales.htm

Helen

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 6:24 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It
>>>>>> doesn't appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web
>>>>>> site.
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>> Will Sport aircraft be allowed to be IFR certified?
>>>>> -Robert
>>>> There is at least one S-LSA aircraft that is IFR
>>>> certified.http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html
>>> So then I assume the pilot would need a current class 3 medical,
>>> correct?
>>>
>>> -Robert
>>
>> And an IFR ticket. But the question wasn't about pilot certificates it
>> was about aircraft.
>>
>
> Yes. I'm instrument rated and was simply wondering what, if any, LSA's
> could be flown IFR. I;m debating whether to buy one just for fun
> flying, but with the capability to occasionally fly in IMC if needed. I
> can buy a 20 year-old 182 that burns 12 GPH or I can buy a new LSA that
> burns half that ... and is new!
>
> Yes, I give up two seats, but most of my flying is alone anyway or with
> one other person, so I'll just rent when I need four seats. That was
> the rationale behind my question.
>
> Matt

Helen wrote:
> If you are a Cessna pilot, you'll LOVE the Tecnam line of IFR available
> LSAs. We have an Echo on the line. It is super stable, super roomy,
> and has a super useful load. We have a 6'9" 310lb student taking
> lessons in it with a 200lb instructor! It has the stability you need
> for IFR, and useful load you need for long range tanks if you are going
> to fly hard IFR. Best of all, you won't sacrifice roominess. It's
> every bit as comfy as a 172. The IFR certified Rotax 912S burns about 4
> gph, mo gas preferred. Available glass or traditional. The new 2008
> panel is superb, available glass or traditional, and complete with cup
> holder.

It wasn't obvious from a quick perusal as to what the key differences
are between the Super Echo and the Bravo. Is there a comparison table
somewhere on the Tecnam web site that I simply didn't find?

Any idea as to the price target of the P2006T?

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Helen wrote:
>> If you are a Cessna pilot, you'll LOVE the Tecnam line of IFR
>> available LSAs. We have an Echo on the line. It is super stable,
>> super roomy, and has a super useful load. We have a 6'9" 310lb
>> student taking lessons in it with a 200lb instructor! It has the
>> stability you need for IFR, and useful load you need for long range
>> tanks if you are going to fly hard IFR. Best of all, you won't
>> sacrifice roominess. It's every bit as comfy as a 172. The IFR
>> certified Rotax 912S burns about 4 gph, mo gas preferred. Available
>> glass or traditional. The new 2008 panel is superb, available glass
>> or traditional, and complete with cup holder.
>
> It wasn't obvious from a quick perusal as to what the key differences
> are between the Super Echo and the Bravo. Is there a comparison table
> somewhere on the Tecnam web site that I simply didn't find?
>
> Any idea as to the price target of the P2006T?

I should have added "as delivered in the USA"

Matt

Think about Skyhawk vs. Cardinal and you have the difference. Both are
good planes. The wing shapes are a bit different and the Bravo is
strutless. The wing shape makes the Echo an easier trainer but the
Bravo faster. The Bravo easily dose the legal limit of 120kts. The
Echo has more headroom since it doesn't have a large wing spar running
through the roof like the Bravo. The Bravo starts at $99,900 US
delivered. A reasonable VFR instrument package would put you at about
$110K. The engine upgrade required for IMC is about $9K. Either engine
you can file IFR with on this plane. However the 912S is required for
flight into IMC.

Helen

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Helen wrote:
>> If you are a Cessna pilot, you'll LOVE the Tecnam line of IFR
>> available LSAs. We have an Echo on the line. It is super stable,
>> super roomy, and has a super useful load. We have a 6'9" 310lb
>> student taking lessons in it with a 200lb instructor! It has the
>> stability you need for IFR, and useful load you need for long range
>> tanks if you are going to fly hard IFR. Best of all, you won't
>> sacrifice roominess. It's every bit as comfy as a 172. The IFR
>> certified Rotax 912S burns about 4 gph, mo gas preferred. Available
>> glass or traditional. The new 2008 panel is superb, available glass
>> or traditional, and complete with cup holder.
>
> It wasn't obvious from a quick perusal as to what the key differences
> are between the Super Echo and the Bravo. Is there a comparison table
> somewhere on the Tecnam web site that I simply didn't find?
>
> Any idea as to the price target of the P2006T?
>
> Matt

Helen wrote:
> Think about Skyhawk vs. Cardinal and you have the difference. Both are
> good planes. The wing shapes are a bit different and the Bravo is
> strutless. The wing shape makes the Echo an easier trainer but the
> Bravo faster. The Bravo easily dose the legal limit of 120kts. The
> Echo has more headroom since it doesn't have a large wing spar running
> through the roof like the Bravo. The Bravo starts at $99,900 US
> delivered. A reasonable VFR instrument package would put you at about
> $110K. The engine upgrade required for IMC is about $9K. Either engine
> you can file IFR with on this plane. However the 912S is required for
> flight into IMC.

Ah! I looked at those pictures several times and didn't even see the
lack of wing struts. Thanks.

Matt

"Helen" > wrote in message
news:f6wSi.7090$DX.1340@trnddc06...
> Think about Skyhawk vs. Cardinal and you have the difference. Both are
> good planes. The wing shapes are a bit different and the Bravo is
> strutless. The wing shape makes the Echo an easier trainer but the Bravo
> faster. The Bravo easily dose the legal limit of 120kts. The Echo has
> more headroom since it doesn't have a large wing spar running through the
> roof like the Bravo. The Bravo starts at $99,900 US delivered. A
> reasonable VFR instrument package would put you at about $110K. The
> engine upgrade required for IMC is about $9K. Either engine you can file
> IFR with on this plane. However the 912S is required for flight into IMC.
>
> Helen

Is there an option for the Continental O-200? I could not accept the ROTAX
lack of customer support and lack of FBOs which will work on them.

>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Helen wrote:
>>> If you are a Cessna pilot, you'll LOVE the Tecnam line of IFR available
>>> LSAs. We have an Echo on the line. It is super stable, super roomy,
>>> and has a super useful load. We have a 6'9" 310lb student taking
>>> lessons in it with a 200lb instructor! It has the stability you need
>>> for IFR, and useful load you need for long range tanks if you are going
>>> to fly hard IFR. Best of all, you won't sacrifice roominess. It's
>>> every bit as comfy as a 172. The IFR certified Rotax 912S burns about 4
>>> gph, mo gas preferred. Available glass or traditional. The new 2008
>>> panel is superb, available glass or traditional, and complete with cup
>>> holder.
>>
>> It wasn't obvious from a quick perusal as to what the key differences are
>> between the Super Echo and the Bravo. Is there a comparison table
>> somewhere on the Tecnam web site that I simply didn't find?
>>
>> Any idea as to the price target of the P2006T?
>>
>> Matt

No, but the Rotax service network probably isn't as small as you'd think
and it's really growing. Lockwood Aviation, one of the premier Rotax
service centers in the country is putting together an on-line training
course too which will allow many more shops across the country to become
Rotax certified.

It really is a nice engine too. I'm an O300 owner and never cease to
marvel at how nice our 912ULSs at work are.

Helen

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Helen" > wrote in message
> news:f6wSi.7090$DX.1340@trnddc06...
>> Think about Skyhawk vs. Cardinal and you have the difference. Both are
>> good planes. The wing shapes are a bit different and the Bravo is
>> strutless. The wing shape makes the Echo an easier trainer but the Bravo
>> faster. The Bravo easily dose the legal limit of 120kts. The Echo has
>> more headroom since it doesn't have a large wing spar running through the
>> roof like the Bravo. The Bravo starts at $99,900 US delivered. A
>> reasonable VFR instrument package would put you at about $110K. The
>> engine upgrade required for IMC is about $9K. Either engine you can file
>> IFR with on this plane. However the 912S is required for flight into IMC.
>>
>> Helen
>
> Is there an option for the Continental O-200? I could not accept the ROTAX
> lack of customer support and lack of FBOs which will work on them.
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Helen wrote:
>>>> If you are a Cessna pilot, you'll LOVE the Tecnam line of IFR available
>>>> LSAs. We have an Echo on the line. It is super stable, super roomy,
>>>> and has a super useful load. We have a 6'9" 310lb student taking
>>>> lessons in it with a 200lb instructor! It has the stability you need
>>>> for IFR, and useful load you need for long range tanks if you are going
>>>> to fly hard IFR. Best of all, you won't sacrifice roominess. It's
>>>> every bit as comfy as a 172. The IFR certified Rotax 912S burns about 4
>>>> gph, mo gas preferred. Available glass or traditional. The new 2008
>>>> panel is superb, available glass or traditional, and complete with cup
>>>> holder.
>>> It wasn't obvious from a quick perusal as to what the key differences are
>>> between the Super Echo and the Bravo. Is there a comparison table
>>> somewhere on the Tecnam web site that I simply didn't find?
>>>
>>> Any idea as to the price target of the P2006T?
>>>
>>> Matt
>
>

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Any idea as to the price target of the P2006T?

Rumor has it in 2006:

235k in Euro's with standard equipment...
Nearly 300k Euro's with a glass panel...
33.5k down upon euro certification...

> I should have added "as delivered in the USA"

Under 10 gallons an hour to fly it back from Europe @ 147 knots...

On Oct 15, 10:37 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> And an IFR ticket. But the question wasn't about pilot certificates it was
> about aircraft.- Hide quoted text -

I think you missed the point. Its important to point out that the
pilot would have to have a 3rd class medical because the Skycatcher
otherwise qualifies for Sport Pilots. So if you fly VFR you do not
need a medical, if you fly IFR you do. So if you are considering going
to sport pilot aircraft and looking at the SKycatcher but plan on
flying IFR its important to note that you'll need to keep a current
class 3 medical in order to fly IFR.

-Robert

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>
> Under 10 gallons an hour to fly it back from Europe @ 147 knots...

147 kts? In a Skycatcher?

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Oct 15, 10:37 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> And an IFR ticket. But the question wasn't about pilot certificates
>> it was about aircraft.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I think you missed the point. Its important to point out that the
> pilot would have to have a 3rd class medical because the Skycatcher
> otherwise qualifies for Sport Pilots. So if you fly VFR you do not
> need a medical, if you fly IFR you do. So if you are considering going
> to sport pilot aircraft and looking at the SKycatcher but plan on
> flying IFR its important to note that you'll need to keep a current
> class 3 medical in order to fly IFR.
>
> -Robert

I may well have missed the point but since it was over a month ago don't
remember all the original post. But if you look at just the part of my post
that you quoted I mention that the OP wasn't about pilot certificates but
aircraft. IFR isn't the only reason a PPL or higher would need a medical.
Night operations, flight over 10K feet, ect.

B A R R Y > wrote:
> Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>>
>> Under 10 gallons an hour to fly it back from Europe @ 147 knots...
>
> 147 kts? In a Skycatcher?

Noticed you neglected to quote this part:

> Any idea as to the price target of the P2006T?

Thats the Tecnam twin engine:

http://www.tecnamaircraft.com/Tecnam_P2006T.htm

Looks like a baby Aero Commander or Vulcanair...

http://www.vulcanair.com

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:06:10 GMT, Darrel Toepfer >
wrote:

>B A R R Y > wrote:
>> Darrel Toepfer wrote:
>>>
>>> Under 10 gallons an hour to fly it back from Europe @ 147 knots...
>>
>> 147 kts? In a Skycatcher?
>
>Noticed you neglected to quote this part:
>
>> Any idea as to the price target of the P2006T?

Not neglected, totally missed it in a Skycatcher thread.

Thanks for the info.

On 2007-10-12 16:30:31 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:

>
> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>
> Matt

The Skycatcher is Cessna's Light Sport Aircraft. The FAA, in its
infinite wisdom, has decreed that new LSA cannot be certified for IFR.

However, all the needed wiring harness is there if someone wants to
convert the airplane to IFR flight.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-10-16 07:46:25 -0700, xyzzy > said:

> On Oct 12, 7:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>>
>> Matt
>
> You've gotten a lot of good replies here so it may be redundant, but I
> did want to mention I saw the Skycatcher at OshKosh and asked one of
> the Cessna salesdrones if it would be IFR capable and he said no.
>
> Putting the technical and regulatory limitations aside, I doubt Cessna
> would want to cannibalize 172 sales by offering a much cheaper IFR
> alternative.

Yeah, sure. Both the Skycatcher and the 172 have order backlogs running
into several years now. Somehow I doubt that Cessna is worried about
sales.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:16:52 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>On 2007-10-16 07:46:25 -0700, xyzzy > said:
>
>> On Oct 12, 7:30 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> You've gotten a lot of good replies here so it may be redundant, but I
>> did want to mention I saw the Skycatcher at OshKosh and asked one of
>> the Cessna salesdrones if it would be IFR capable and he said no.
>>
>> Putting the technical and regulatory limitations aside, I doubt Cessna
>> would want to cannibalize 172 sales by offering a much cheaper IFR
>> alternative.
>
>Yeah, sure. Both the Skycatcher and the 172 have order backlogs running
>into several years now. Somehow I doubt that Cessna is worried about
>sales.

I could walk into my local STAR and pick up a 172 or 182 tomorrow.
Maybe the factory has a production backlog for a long time out, but
from what I can tell it's likely because they're shoving completed
positions out onto the dealers where the aircraft sit in inventory
waiting for an end user.

And yet several ads for LSA aircraft state they are IFR certified.




C J Campbell wrote:

> On 2007-10-12 16:30:31 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:
>
>>
>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> The Skycatcher is Cessna's Light Sport Aircraft. The FAA, in its
> infinite wisdom, has decreed that new LSA cannot be certified for IFR.
>
> However, all the needed wiring harness is there if someone wants to
> convert the airplane to IFR flight.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:44:53 -0700, in rec.aviation.owning, Newps
> wrote:

>C J Campbell wrote:
>> The Skycatcher is Cessna's Light Sport Aircraft. The FAA, in its
>> infinite wisdom, has decreed that new LSA cannot be certified for IFR.
>
>And yet several ads for LSA aircraft state they are IFR certified.

Isn't it just LSA *pilots* that can't fly IFR? If so, that'd be no reason
to omit IFR hardware from the plane. You just need a private and instrument
ticket to fly it IFR.

-Scott

> Matt Whiting said:
>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.

The Cessna rep at the recent Hartford Expo claimed the Skycather will be VFR
day and nite authorized per the ASTM standard (it will obviously exceed the
Part 91 minimum requirements), so it can be used as both a SP and primary
PPL line trainer. He said that it will NOT be authorized for flight into
IMC, even when the ASTM finalizes their IFR operations consensus standard.
When I pressed him on why, he claimed that Cessna gave into that as a design
limitation to Garmin, before Garmin custom designed the displays. He claimed
that Garmin could (would??) not meet price and performance (with limited
redundancy) if the boxes needed to meet future IMC/IFR operational
conditions.

I have been unable to vet this "Garmin" information. But I know that if any
LSA component manufacturer of the airframe (ie engine, prop, etc) disallows
operation at night or in IMC then that operation is forbidden per the FAA
rules.

This whole issue of PPLs operating LSAs in IMC is very nebulus to me a the
moment. Helen Woods had steared me back to the FAA docs that clearly show
IFR operations of LSAs falling within the final rules. I have the
disadvantage of having been involved in some of the original development and
comment process, and now am a little confused as to what actually made it
into the final docs. I promised myself that on a couple of cold snowy nites
this winter I'll print them all out and (re)read them.


"C J Campbell" wrote...
> The Skycatcher is Cessna's Light Sport Aircraft. The FAA, in its infinite
> wisdom, has decreed that new LSA cannot be certified for IFR.

I have been a proponent of that line of thinking since the original rfc. The
FAA now says we are both wrong. I will wait for the final Consensus
Standard, but I don't like SEL ops with Part 91 minimum equipment in IMC, so
I don't see myself getting in a LSA for an IRF trip. Hell,... can anyone
tell me if any LSA maker besides Tecnam even has window defrost?

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:51:13 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
> wrote:

>
>
>> Matt Whiting said:
>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>
>The Cessna rep at the recent Hartford Expo claimed the Skycather will be VFR
>day and nite authorized per the ASTM standard (it will obviously exceed the
>Part 91 minimum requirements), so it can be used as both a SP and primary
>PPL line trainer. He said that it will NOT be authorized for flight into
>IMC, even when the ASTM finalizes their IFR operations consensus standard.

FWIW, I know of a flight school that passed on DA-20's for PPL
training, due to the lack of basic IFR ability.

The school owner explained to me that they wanted basic IFR capability
in case the instructor needed to fly the airplane back to base in IFR
after changing weather conditions.

On 2007-11-23 03:26:51 -0800, B A R R Y > said:

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:51:13 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Matt Whiting said:
>>>> Does anyone know if the Skycatcher will be IFR certified? It doesn't
>>>> appear to be from what little I've found at the Cessna web site.
>>
>> The Cessna rep at the recent Hartford Expo claimed the Skycather will be VFR
>> day and nite authorized per the ASTM standard (it will obviously exceed the
>> Part 91 minimum requirements), so it can be used as both a SP and primary
>> PPL line trainer. He said that it will NOT be authorized for flight into
>> IMC, even when the ASTM finalizes their IFR operations consensus standard.
>
> FWIW, I know of a flight school that passed on DA-20's for PPL
> training, due to the lack of basic IFR ability.
>
> The school owner explained to me that they wanted basic IFR capability
> in case the instructor needed to fly the airplane back to base in IFR
> after changing weather conditions.

Well, that would certainly be a possibility around here. I have had to
fly back IFR several times.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> The Skycatcher is Cessna's Light Sport Aircraft. The FAA, in its
> infinite wisdom, has decreed that new LSA cannot be certified for IFR.
>

They have done no such thing.

It is true that there is no "IFR certification" for an LSA, but none is
required. The aircraft simply needs to meet IFR equipment requirements
and have no operating limitations on it or its equipment against such.

The Tecnam series is completely IFR legal if you buy it equipped as such:

http://www.tecnamaircraft.com/

Helen

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> The Skycatcher is Cessna's Light Sport Aircraft. The FAA, in its
>> infinite wisdom, has decreed that new LSA cannot be certified for IFR.
>>
>
> They have done no such thing.
>
>