On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:31:23 -0500, "Netgeek" wrote:

You know, I'm really starting to have some doubts about the utility/value of
the Special-LSA ruling in general. Without some legislative changes
regarding liability on the part of the manufacturers and potential
aftermarket suppliers I wonder if this isn't going to be "The Death of
General Aviation - Part II". No doubt there are going to be any number of
lawyers just waiting to pounce on S-LSA manufacturers as soon as there's an
accident or two - and those manufacturers will get to walk the plank just as
their larger predecessors (e.g. Cessna, Piper, Beech, et. al.) have been
forced to in the past.

But they probably won't have two coins to rub together to start with ANYWAY, and
if they're smart, they won't carry liability insurance. Without a deep pocket
to go after, the liability lawyers won't be interested. Makers of current
homebuilt kits are vulnerable, too.

As for the potential manufacturers of aftermarket equipment - they will have
little incentive to develop and market products because they will need the
individual approval of *each and every* SLA manufacturer in order to sell
their products. And, as Ron has pointed out, why would they grant such
approval at all since it only serves to increase their exposure to
liability?!!! If the "old" rules appeared ponderous (i.e. TSO, Part 23,
etc.) the "new" rules are worse *unless* additional methods for a blanket
approval of some type can be developed.

Well...remember that the LSA rules were created for a specific purpose: To make
new, low-cost simple aircraft available again. The main push was to remove the
government from the process and let aircraft builders innovate. Making things
easier for aftermarket component vendors was not a factor.

IF (and this still seems to be a big IF) the Experimental-LSA category will
allow more or less unrestrained modification, customization, and
installation of newer avionics and systems by the owner - while reducing the
burden of the 51% rule - the market might just take off in a big way!

The difficulty comes in the process required to license a new airplane as an
ELSA. To get approved as an ELSA kit, the design must first be certified as an
SLSA. Joe Smith can't just build a prototype, fly off 40 hours, and start
selling ELSA kits of the design. He must perform all the analyses and flight
testing the consensus standard requires, and earn a SLSA certificate for his
prototype. Only then can he sell ELSA kits.

As for me, I think that the safe bet for my needs and desires at the moment
lead directly back to the current Experimental/Amateur-Built category.

Bill, it really depends on what type of aircraft you anticipate selling your
product to. If you're going to sell it to Cessna and Piper owners, you'd best
pick up a Cessna/Piper to use for flight testing. If your market is going to be
RV/Glasair/Lancair homebuilders, pick up one of those types of planes for
testing.

And if you anticipate your product will be primarily of interest to LSA owners,
work on making it capable of non-permanent mounting. That probably will still
be legit, even under the LSA restrictions.

Ron Wanttaja