New LSA rules

[Frank]

I thought that I understood the new Sport Pilot/Aircraft rules (first
mistake) until I came across the fact that apparently you can buy a ready to
fly CH601HD made by Zenair in the US that is registered as a sLSA, or you
can buy the same ready to fly plane built by Czech Aircraft Works and
register it as an eLSA. The only difference seems to be that the US built
plane uses a Lycoming engine, the Czech one uses a Rotax.

Do the rules really give you the option of registering a factory built,
ready to fly plane as an experimental LSA?

Frank Laczko

[Blueskies]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
>I thought that I understood the new Sport Pilot/Aircraft rules (first mistake) until I came across the fact that
>apparently you can buy a ready to fly CH601HD made by Zenair in the US that is registered as a sLSA, or you can buy the
>same ready to fly plane built by Czech Aircraft Works and register it as an eLSA. The only difference seems to be that
>the US built plane uses a Lycoming engine, the Czech one uses a Rotax.
>
> Do the rules really give you the option of registering a factory built, ready to fly plane as an experimental LSA?
>
> Frank Laczko
>

Don't think it would be registered as experimental, just certified.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:57:47 -0500, "Frank" > wrote:

>I thought that I understood the new Sport Pilot/Aircraft rules (first
>mistake) until I came across the fact that apparently you can buy a ready to
>fly CH601HD made by Zenair in the US that is registered as a sLSA, or you
>can buy the same ready to fly plane built by Czech Aircraft Works and
>register it as an eLSA. The only difference seems to be that the US built
>plane uses a Lycoming engine, the Czech one uses a Rotax.
>
>Do the rules really give you the option of registering a factory built,
>ready to fly plane as an experimental LSA?

Yep. The new 21.191, "Experimental Certificates," says that an Experimental
certificate can be issued to a plane that "...Has been previously issued a
special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under §21.190."

The owner of a production LSA (Special LSA) can decide to re-register the
aircraft as an Experimental LSA, AFTER WHICH the plane no longer has to comply
with the consensus standard. I'm not surprised that the FAA lets them avoid the
intermediate process.

Notice the emphasis on "AFTER WHICH". A non-conversion LSA (e.g., a plane not
formerly operated under Part 103) *must* comply with its certification
configuration at the time the application is made for an Experimental LSA
certificate. After the owner has the Experimental certificate, he or she can
modify the aircraft as they wish.

The same holds true for building an ELSA kit. You must build it *exactly* to
the manufacturer's instructions, but after you have the certificate, you can
make whatever changes you like. Major changes will require FAA notification,
just like a Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:57:47 -0500, "Frank" > wrote:
>
>>I thought that I understood the new Sport Pilot/Aircraft rules (first
>
>>mistake) until I came across the fact that apparently you can buy a r
>eady to
>>fly CH601HD made by Zenair in the US that is registered as a sLSA, or
> you
>>can buy the same ready to fly plane built by Czech Aircraft Works and
>
>>register it as an eLSA. The only difference seems to be that the US b
>uilt
>>plane uses a Lycoming engine, the Czech one uses a Rotax.
>>
>>Do the rules really give you the option of registering a factory buil
>t,
>>ready to fly plane as an experimental LSA?
>
>Yep. The new 21.191, "Experimental Certificates," says that an Experi
>mental
>certificate can be issued to a plane that "...Has been previously issu
>ed a
>special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under §2
>1.190."
>
>The owner of a production LSA (Special LSA) can decide to re-register
>the
>aircraft as an Experimental LSA, AFTER WHICH the plane no longer has t
>o comply
>with the consensus standard. I'm not surprised that the FAA lets them
> avoid the
>intermediate process.
>
>Notice the emphasis on "AFTER WHICH". A non-conversion LSA (e.g., a p
>lane not
>formerly operated under Part 103) *must* comply with its certification
>configuration at the time the application is made for an Experimental
>LSA
>certificate. After the owner has the Experimental certificate, he or
>she can
>modify the aircraft as they wish.
>
>The same holds true for building an ELSA kit. You must build it *exac
>tly* to
>the manufacturer's instructions, but after you have the certificate, y
>ou can
>make whatever changes you like. Major changes will require FAA notifi
>cation,
>just like a Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft.
>
>Ron Wanttaja
>
>

Ron made a couple of mistakes in his answer and this exact plane was
under heavy discussion on the UL groups. After a lot of investigation
and controversy we found out that most of the confusion is caused by a
distributor that while not exactly dishonest, is misleading potential
customers. BUYER BEWARE before you spend any money, read and
understand the rest of this post. If anybody wants confirmation of any
statements below, just ask because I have all the references to back
them up.

LSA are not certified like type certified aircraft. A manufacturer
does not get a type certificate that covers all aircraft built to an
approved model. Each LSA is individually certificated by the
manufacturer that it was built to a specific consensous standard such
as SLSA or ELSA.

FAR 21.191(i)(3) does allow for an SLSA to be downgraded to ELSA.
However it must have been manufactured to the SLSA consensous standard
and registered as an SLSA first. We call this a downgraded ELSA. That
is not what is happening in this case.

FAR 21.191(i)(1) Until Oct 31, 2008 this allows almost any plane that
weighs less than 1320 pounds to be registered as an ELSA if it has
never been registered before. It doesn't matter if it is an existing
UL built from a kit or a brand new factory built ready to fly plane.
These planes are not required to be built to any consensous standard.
In fact they do not have to meet any standard at all. We call this a
grandfathered ELSA.

FAR 21.191(i)(2) covers kits that meet the ELSA consensous standards.
Note that these kits can be 99% finished but they can not be sold ready
to fly. We call those a kit ELSA. Note that none of these can be
manufactured or sold yet because those standards are not yet completed
or approved.

It is important to know which type ELSA you are discussing because the
grandfathered ELSA MUST get operating limitations simular to UL which
are very restrictive at the airworthiness inspection.

The downgraded ELSA and the kit ELSA get almost the same operating
limitations as SLSA except they can not be used for paid instruction or
rental.

The CH601 manufactured by Zenair is manufactured to the SLSA consensous
standards and is legitimately advertised.

The CH601 manufactured by Czech Aircraft Works is NOT manufactured to
the consensous standards. It is only a grandfathered ELSA and MUST get
the most restrictive operating limitations. The distributor appears to
go to great lengths to hide this and confuse the customer. Remember
that there are only three types of ELSA (and one of those can't be sold
yet). If it doesn't have a manufacturers certification that it meets
the consensous standards, it has to be a grandfathered ELSA.
Apparently most sellers require potential customers to ask before they
explain and even then will mis lead you if they can.

The operating limitations are clearly explained in FAA Order 8130.2F
change 1.

These aircraft can be maintained and inspected by the owner if he
attends schools to get the repairmans certificates offered. Note that
this does NOT give him the authority to make modifications to the
plane. Completing these schools does not even allow him to make "major
repairs". Just because the word "experimental" is involved does NOT
mean that other experimental (such as amateur built) rules apply to
LSA.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 05:07:38 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:

>These aircraft can be maintained and inspected by the owner if he
>attends schools to get the repairmans certificates offered. Note that
>this does NOT give him the authority to make modifications to the
>plane. Completing these schools does not even allow him to make "major
>repairs". Just because the word "experimental" is involved does NOT
>mean that other experimental (such as amateur built) rules apply to
>LSA.

Actually, the same rules *do* apply to ELSAs...or to be more correct, the same
*lack* of rules. 14CFR Part 43 does not apply to any aircraft certified as
Experimental.

Experimental LSAs, like Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft, are governed by the
operating limitations issued at the time the plane is certified. The ELSA
operating limitations specified in 8130-2F Change 1 certainly imply that major
changes may be performed ("All major changes or modifications will be listed in
the aircraft records...") but make no stipulation on the minimum requirements
necessary to perform such a modification.

Last January, I asked an Inspector at the FAA Light Sport Aviation Branch
whether the owner of an Experimental LSA was free to modify the aircraft. The
reply was, "There is nothing regulatory requiring the aircraft be held to the
consensus standard after certification in the experimental category so they
would be free to modify as they see fit but the aircraft would have to back to
phase 1 testing...."

This pre-dated the Change 1 to 8130-2F, but I haven't seen anything in Change 1
to contradict this.

Ron Wanttaja

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 05:07:38 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:
>
>>These aircraft can be maintained and inspected by the owner if he
>>attends schools to get the repairmans certificates offered. Note tha
>t
>>this does NOT give him the authority to make modifications to the
>>plane. Completing these schools does not even allow him to make "maj
>or
>>repairs". Just because the word "experimental" is involved does NOT
>>mean that other experimental (such as amateur built) rules apply to
>>LSA.
>
>Actually, the same rules *do* apply to ELSAs...or to be more correct,
>the same
>*lack* of rules. 14CFR Part 43 does not apply to any aircraft certifi
>ed as
>Experimental.
>
>Experimental LSAs, like Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft, are gover
>ned by the
>operating limitations issued at the time the plane is certified. The
>ELSA
>operating limitations specified in 8130-2F Change 1 certainly imply th
>at major
>changes may be performed ("All major changes or modifications will be
>listed in
>the aircraft records...") but make no stipulation on the minimum requi
>rements
>necessary to perform such a modification.
>
>Last January, I asked an Inspector at the FAA Light Sport Aviation Bra
>nch
>whether the owner of an Experimental LSA was free to modify the aircra
>ft. The
>reply was, "There is nothing regulatory requiring the aircraft be held
> to the
>consensus standard after certification in the experimental category so
> they
>would be free to modify as they see fit but the aircraft would have to
> back to
>phase 1 testing...."
>
>This pre-dated the Change 1 to 8130-2F, but I haven't seen anything in
> Change 1
>to contradict this.
>
>Ron Wanttaja

It's not in the operating limitations, it's in the repairman
certification.

When you get the repairmans certificate for your amature built
experimental it gives you certain privleges.

The LSA repairmen certificates give them a different set of privleges.
For instance, you can attend a 16 hour school to get a LSA repairman
certificate with an inspection rating. That allows you to perform the
annual condition inspection but does not allow you to perform any work.

You can attend a 120 hour school to get an LSA repairman certificate
with a maintaince rating. That allows you to do certain work but
states "(excluding a major repair or a major alteration..."

Remember that anyone can get these ratings with no experience and very
little schooling so the FAA isn't gonna let them have but so much
freedom.

Read FAR 65.107(c)(1) and (3)

It may be possible for an A&P to make modifications to ELSA but the LSA
repairmen can't do it themselves.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:21:29 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:

>In article >,
says...

>>Experimental LSAs, like Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft, are gover
>>ned by the
>>operating limitations issued at the time the plane is certified. The
>>ELSA
>>operating limitations specified in 8130-2F Change 1 certainly imply th
>>at major
>>changes may be performed ("All major changes or modifications will be
>>listed in
>>the aircraft records...") but make no stipulation on the minimum requi
>>rements
>>necessary to perform such a modification.
>
>It's not in the operating limitations, it's in the repairman
>certification.
>
>When you get the repairmans certificate for your amature built
>experimental it gives you certain privleges.
>
>The LSA repairmen certificates give them a different set of privleges.
> For instance, you can attend a 16 hour school to get a LSA repairman
>certificate with an inspection rating. That allows you to perform the
>annual condition inspection but does not allow you to perform any work.

But neither does the Repairman Certificate for an Amateur-Built aircraft...see
65.104 (b):

"(b) The holder of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder) may
perform condition inspections on the aircraft constructed by the holder in
accordance with the operating limitations of that aircraft. "

That's all that the Amateur-built aircraft Repairman Certificate covers. It
does not authorize the holder of the Repairman Certificate to maintain the
aircraft, nor does it authorize him or her to modify it.

There *are* no regulations specifying who may maintain or modify an Experimental
Amateur-Built aircraft. Hence, anyone can. I maintain my Fly Baby, despite
holding neither an A&P license or Repairman Certificate.

The same regulatory void exists for Experimental Light Sport Aircraft. Yes, FAR
65.107 specifies that the older of an LS-I or LS-M Repairman Certificate *may*
perform the annual inspection. But FAR 65 does not apply to aircraft; its topic
is certification for airman other than flight crew members. And read 14CFR Part
1.3 to see what 'may' means.

Look at the "Light-Sport Aircraft Maintenance and Certification Requirements"
table in the FAA's initial Sport Pilot release (page 27 of the Word document) it
clearly states that ELSAs are owner-maintained. Not regulatory, of course, but
it clearly indicates the FAA's intent, and there are no regulations that
contradict it.

>You can attend a 120 hour school to get an LSA repairman certificate
>with a maintaince rating. That allows you to do certain work but
>states "(excluding a major repair or a major alteration..."

Pardon me, but you didn't finish the quote: "(excluding a major repair or major
alteration ON A PRODUCT PRODUCED UNDER FAA APPROVAL)" (emphasis added). In other
words, if the LSA mounts a certified O-235, a person with an LS-M cannot perform
major repair or alteration on it. But the airframe of an LSA, and the engine
(if it was certified as conforming to the consensus standard) are NOT produced
under FAA approval. Hence the exception does not apply.

>It may be possible for an A&P to make modifications to ELSA but the LSA
>repairmen can't do it themselves.

Sorry, but as indicated above, I see no such prohibition in the regulations.

Ron Wanttaja

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:21:29 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
says...
>
>>>Experimental LSAs, like Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft, are gov
>er
>>>ned by the
>>>operating limitations issued at the time the plane is certified. Th
>e
>>>ELSA
>>>operating limitations specified in 8130-2F Change 1 certainly imply
>th
>>>at major
>>>changes may be performed ("All major changes or modifications will b
>e
>>>listed in
>>>the aircraft records...") but make no stipulation on the minimum req
>ui
>>>rements
>>>necessary to perform such a modification.
>>
>>It's not in the operating limitations, it's in the repairman
>>certification.
>>
>>When you get the repairmans certificate for your amature built
>>experimental it gives you certain privleges.
>>
>>The LSA repairmen certificates give them a different set of privleges
>.
>> For instance, you can attend a 16 hour school to get a LSA repairman
>
>>certificate with an inspection rating. That allows you to perform th
>e
>>annual condition inspection but does not allow you to perform any wor
>k.
>
>But neither does the Repairman Certificate for an Amateur-Built aircra
>ft...see
>65.104 (b):
>
>"(b) The holder of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft buil
>der) may
>perform condition inspections on the aircraft constructed by the holde
>r in
>accordance with the operating limitations of that aircraft. "
>
>That's all that the Amateur-built aircraft Repairman Certificate cover
>s. It
>does not authorize the holder of the Repairman Certificate to maintain
> the
>aircraft, nor does it authorize him or her to modify it.
>
>There *are* no regulations specifying who may maintain or modify an Ex
>perimental
>Amateur-Built aircraft. Hence, anyone can. I maintain my Fly Baby, d
>espite
>holding neither an A&P license or Repairman Certificate.
>
>The same regulatory void exists for Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.
> Yes, FAR
>65.107 specifies that the older of an LS-I or LS-M Repairman Certifica
>te *may*
>perform the annual inspection. But FAR 65 does not apply to aircraft;
> its topic
>is certification for airman other than flight crew members. And read
>14CFR Part
>1.3 to see what 'may' means.
>
>Look at the "Light-Sport Aircraft Maintenance and Certification Requir
>ements"
>table in the FAA's initial Sport Pilot release (page 27 of the Word do
>cument) it
>clearly states that ELSAs are owner-maintained. Not regulatory, of co
>urse, but
>it clearly indicates the FAA's intent, and there are no regulations th
>at
>contradict it.
>
>>You can attend a 120 hour school to get an LSA repairman certificate
>>with a maintaince rating. That allows you to do certain work but
>>states "(excluding a major repair or a major alteration..."
>
>Pardon me, but you didn't finish the quote: "(excluding a major repai
>r or major
>alteration ON A PRODUCT PRODUCED UNDER FAA APPROVAL)" (emphasis added)
>. In other
>words, if the LSA mounts a certified O-235, a person with an LS-M cann
>ot perform
>major repair or alteration on it. But the airframe of an LSA, and the
> engine
>(if it was certified as conforming to the consensus standard) are NOT
>produced
>under FAA approval. Hence the exception does not apply.
>
>>It may be possible for an A&P to make modifications to ELSA but the L
>SA
>>repairmen can't do it themselves.
>
>Sorry, but as indicated above, I see no such prohibition in the regula
>tions.
>
>Ron Wanttaja


I see it a little different Ron. Instead of an FAA written approval
process, the FAA approved and accepted the procedures in the consensous
standards for LSA. The FAA had to publish that official approval in
the federal register. They have also stated that if other consensous
standards from other sources were written, the FAA could approve or not
approve those standards for the design and construction of LSA as well.
Without that FAA approval, the consensous standards (and standards
approved by other countries) mean nothing.

In other words, I think the planes produced under the consensous
standards are "produced under FAA approval" the same as type certified
planes are produced under FAA approval.

Not just the airframe either. There is a consensous standard for the
design and testing of engines for LSA planes. That also was approved
by the FAA.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:53:26 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:


>I see it a little different Ron. Instead of an FAA written approval
>process, the FAA approved and accepted the procedures in the consensous
>standards for LSA. The FAA had to publish that official approval in
>the federal register. They have also stated that if other consensous
>standards from other sources were written, the FAA could approve or not
>approve those standards for the design and construction of LSA as well.
> Without that FAA approval, the consensous standards (and standards
>approved by other countries) mean nothing.
>
>In other words, I think the planes produced under the consensous
>standards are "produced under FAA approval" the same as type certified
>planes are produced under FAA approval.

Sorry, can't agree. In the initial publication of the LSA/Sport Pilot Rules and
the logic behind them, the FAA has this key statement:

"The use of Form 337 is not required because special light-sport aircraft will
be built to a consensus standard "accepted" by the FAA, but not "approved" by
the FAA." (page 136 of the Word document).

This is echoed by FAA Order 3120-2F Change one, Paragraph 121 d:

"d. Light-Sport Aircraft Construction. The manufacturer of an aircraft for
airworthiness certification in the light-sport category must manufacture the
aircraft to the design requirements and quality system of the applicable
consensus standard that has been accepted by the FAA and published through a
notice of availability in the Federal Register."

"Accept" is not the same as "Approve." Imagine your best friend saying to you,
"I'm gay." Responding, "I accept" is a HECK of a lot different than saying "I
approve." :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:53:26 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:
>
>
>>I see it a little different Ron. Instead of an FAA written approval
>>process, the FAA approved and accepted the procedures in the consenso
>us
>>standards for LSA. The FAA had to publish that official approval in
>>the federal register. They have also stated that if other consensous
>
>>standards from other sources were written, the FAA could approve or n
>ot
>>approve those standards for the design and construction of LSA as wel
>l.
>> Without that FAA approval, the consensous standards (and standards
>>approved by other countries) mean nothing.
>>
>>In other words, I think the planes produced under the consensous
>>standards are "produced under FAA approval" the same as type certifie
>d
>>planes are produced under FAA approval.
>
>Sorry, can't agree. In the initial publication of the LSA/Sport Pilot
> Rules and
>the logic behind them, the FAA has this key statement:
>
>"The use of Form 337 is not required because special light-sport aircr
>aft will
>be built to a consensus standard "accepted" by the FAA, but not "appro
>ved" by
>the FAA." (page 136 of the Word document).

There is a lot in that document that isn't anything like the present
rules so I don't put much faith in it anymore.

Also the statement you quote could be interpreted as saying that
because the planes are built to the consensous standards, no changes
are permitted. There are now provisions where all changes must be
approved by the manufacturer. There is also a system simular to ADs
that the manufacturer handles instead of the FAA.


>This is echoed by FAA Order 3120-2F Change one, Paragraph 121 d:
>
>"d. Light-Sport Aircraft Construction. The manufacturer of an aircraft
> for
>airworthiness certification in the light-sport category must manufactu
>re the
>aircraft to the design requirements and quality system of the applicab
>le
>consensus standard that has been accepted by the FAA and published thr
>ough a
>notice of availability in the Federal Register."
>
>"Accept" is not the same as "Approve." Imagine your best friend sayin
>g to you,
>"I'm gay." Responding, "I accept" is a HECK of a lot different than s
>aying "I
>approve." :-)
>
>Ron Wanttaja

You are correct about the gay part but you might be splitting hairs
when it comes to the FAA. There must be other references in the FARs
and 8130. I hope you are right Ron but I'm gonna reserve judgement
until I see it in operation. The FAA has continued to make changes and
clarifications as the problems have shown up. This issue just hasn't
been in the spotlight yet because the last I heard, there has only been
one 16 hour class and no 120 hour classes yet. Blakely has talked
about 44 sport pilots so far and another source said 100. Either way
it's gonna be a while before this becomes an issue.

As long as a SP can fly the lighter weight experimental amature built
planes, I don't expect to ever get involved with the consensous
standards planes anyway.

[rpellicciotti]

When we did the S-LSA certification on the Aerostar Festival, the FAA
required us to add a statement to the maintenance manual, "Repairs or
modifications to the airplane not described in this manual must be
approved by the manufacturer". This basically means that the
manufacturer will have to be consulted on a modification and do the
necessary engineering in order to approve it. Similar to the 337
process but just not done by the FAA.

Rick Pellicciotti
LightSportFlying.com

[W P Dixon]

Hey Rick,
So how much is gonna cost me to come over and fly that thing?! :) Do you
plan on flying over to TRI or the area? I'd love to meet you and see the
plane.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"rpellicciotti" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> When we did the S-LSA certification on the Aerostar Festival, the FAA
> required us to add a statement to the maintenance manual, "Repairs or
> modifications to the airplane not described in this manual must be
> approved by the manufacturer". This basically means that the
> manufacturer will have to be consulted on a modification and do the
> necessary engineering in order to approve it. Similar to the 337
> process but just not done by the FAA.
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
> LightSportFlying.com
>

[[email protected]]

That sounds about right......I hold a Repairmans Certificate for the
plane that I built, but I cannot make repairs on it.

Neal

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> That sounds about right......I hold a Repairmans Certificate for the
> plane that I built, but I cannot make repairs on it.
>
> Neal
>

Uh, Why?

[[email protected]]

Actually, I was referring to Ron's mentioning of FAR 65.104(b). Yes, I
actually do make the repairs, but you would think the FAR would also
mention that I COULD make the repairs and not just do the inspectiion (
since it is a Repairmans Certificate. ) According to Ron, I ( or
anyone else ) am not restricted from making the repairs.

Neal

[Rick Pellicciotti]

We will take the airplane on tour this fall. We will be in Union City,
Tn on the 15th of september. Calhoun, Ga on the following weekend, the
US Sport Aviation expo in Sebring, FL the end of October and the AOPA
Expo the following week in Tampa.

Perhaps will will get over to your area in there somewhere. Why don't
you just come over to Memphis most anytime and fly the thing? Just give
me a call first and make sure we are going to be in town.

Rick Pellicciotti
LightSportFlying.com


W P Dixon wrote:

> Hey Rick,
> So how much is gonna cost me to come over and fly that thing?! :) Do you
> plan on flying over to TRI or the area? I'd love to meet you and see the
> plane.
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "rpellicciotti" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>> When we did the S-LSA certification on the Aerostar Festival, the FAA
>> required us to add a statement to the maintenance manual, "Repairs or
>> modifications to the airplane not described in this manual must be
>> approved by the manufacturer". This basically means that the
>> manufacturer will have to be consulted on a modification and do the
>> necessary engineering in order to approve it. Similar to the 337
>> process but just not done by the FAA.
>>
>> Rick Pellicciotti
>> LightSportFlying.com
>>
>

[W P Dixon]

May just have to do that. What are your rates going to be?

Patrick

"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote in message
...
> We will take the airplane on tour this fall. We will be in Union City, Tn
> on the 15th of september. Calhoun, Ga on the following weekend, the US
> Sport Aviation expo in Sebring, FL the end of October and the AOPA Expo
> the following week in Tampa.
>
> Perhaps will will get over to your area in there somewhere. Why don't you
> just come over to Memphis most anytime and fly the thing? Just give me a
> call first and make sure we are going to be in town.
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
> LightSportFlying.com
>
>
> W P Dixon wrote:
>
>> Hey Rick,
>> So how much is gonna cost me to come over and fly that thing?! :) Do you
>> plan on flying over to TRI or the area? I'd love to meet you and see the
>> plane.
>>
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>> "rpellicciotti" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>> When we did the S-LSA certification on the Aerostar Festival, the FAA
>>> required us to add a statement to the maintenance manual, "Repairs or
>>> modifications to the airplane not described in this manual must be
>>> approved by the manufacturer". This basically means that the
>>> manufacturer will have to be consulted on a modification and do the
>>> necessary engineering in order to approve it. Similar to the 337
>>> process but just not done by the FAA.
>>>
>>> Rick Pellicciotti
>>> LightSportFlying.com
>>>
>>
>

[rpellicciotti]

We are going to be at $70.00 wet for the airplane. The instructor will
be $30.00

Rick Pellicciotti
LightSportFlying.com