Which aircraft certification is required for R&D?

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:28:49 -0500, "Netgeek" wrote:

Thanks for the input, Ron. It seems that there are still quite a few
unresolved issues surrounding both SLSA and ELSA (at least in my
feeble mind 8-)......

Ohhh, yeah. It's still, really, a work in progress. If you need
up-to-the-minute answers, contact Earl Lawrence at the EAA.

Suppose that the owner of an SLSA wanted to install a simple autopilot.
It seems that this would require the explicit approval of the manufacturer
(sort of a "virtual STC"), and would also need to be installed and
signed off by an A&P.

You are correct that it needs the explicit approval of the manufacturer.
However, it does not need an A&P signature, as a person with an LSA Maintenance
(LSA-M) Repairman rating can do it as well. The LSA-M rating needs only a
120-hour training course, though who knows when (and if!) these will be offered.
But for the LSA-M Repairman to sign it off, he or she must follow the specific
instructions *supplied by the aircraft manufacturer*. I believe this will also
apply to A&Ps performing the same function, as SLSAs must continue to conform to
the manufacturer's standard.

Yet it appears that no additional equipment certification is required.

Absolutely correct.

So the questions then become: What types of equipment can or cannot be
installed in an SLSA without the manufacturer's approval? Only items
which are TSO'd?

No additional certification is required, so items installed do not need to be
TSO'd or anything else. This is what will allow the SLSA manufacturers to use
non-certified engines in their planes. But *everything* that gets installed in
an SLSA must be approved by the aircraft manufacturer, and their approval means
that the modification still meets the consensus standard. My suspicion is that
they'll be reluctant to do this for third-party providers (why should they take
the liability?).

Is there going to be an additional STC approval process? Same rules as for
Part 23?

If the aircraft manufacturer requires Part 23 certification prior to their
approval, then you have to perform the Part 23 process. If the manufacturer
says, "Just paint the front face blue", that's all the approval process you'll
need. Basically, the SLSA concept is to get the FAA out of the loop. There are
no ADs on SLSA aircraft or parts (unless the part itself is certified). But
manufacturer service directives are mandatory, with all the authority of ADs.

Suppose an owner of an ELSA wanted to do the same thing. Do the same rules
apply as those for Experimental - Amateur Built or will there be a more
restrictive set of rules applicable only to ELSAs?

According to the FAA write-up at the announcement of the FAA rules, if an owner
of an SLSA does not want to continue to keep his or her aircraft in accordance
to the manufacturer's configuration, they can change the certification to ELSA.
*My* interpretation is that the owner can then do whatever he or she wants, just
like Experimental/Amateur-Built. The owner of the ELSA can sign it off, just
like the owner of an Ex/Am-Built. If the owner gets a LSA Inspector (LSA-I)
Repairman Rating (which the EAA will have courses on) they can sign off the
installation at every annual. The big difference between ELSA and Exp/Am-Built
is that *anyone* can receive the LSA-I rating to do the annual inspections on
their owned aircraft.

..
SLSAs (Special LSA, the production aircraft) must be maintained in strict
accordance to the manufacturer's instructions, including performing only
those modifications that the manufacturer approves and making all changes the
manufacturer later specifies.

Exactly. But within what limits? (e.g. non-TSO panel mount GPS is okay but
Acme-brand wing leveler is not?).

Within the limits the SLSA manufacturer sets. If he will only approve Acme
wing-levelers and won't even consider other models, that's it.

However, if an owner does not WISH to maintain his aircraft to the
manufacturer's requirements, the owner can change the aircraft to
Experimental LSA. I haven't got a good read, yet, on what limitations
for changes (if any) are placed on ELSA-category aircraft. You obviously
don't have to conform to
the consensus standard, but I'm not sure if "anything goes" or not.

Do you suspect (as I do) that this is going to be a real can of worms? Is
it reasonable to allow an owner to do virtually anything he wants after
purchasing a "99% kit"? Probably not... I can imagine that until this is clarified
there are going to be some really disappointed folks who see the
"Experimental" tag and then assume that they're getting the same privileges
associated with "Amateur Built" without having to do any real building.

Actually, if they take that 16-hour LSA-I course, they *do* get the same
privileges as an Exp/Am-Built owner. They can maintain and inspect their
aircraft.

The can of worms is whether there are going to be any restrictions on
modifications. But let's not forget our brothers to the north. The Canadians
have an "Owner Maintenance" option where an aircraft owner can change the
certification of the plane and not only maintain it himself, but do stuff like
install an auto engine. They seem pretty happy with it...


The Experimental/Amateur-Built category requires that the *construction*
be undertaken for recreation or education. It does not require that the
plane be operated solely for recreation or education...other than the limitation
against commercial operation.

But if registered to a *company* - and I then hire a commercial pilot to
operate it while I'm twiddling knobs, flipping switches and juggling test
equipment - certainly that would be considered "commercial operation" would
it not?

You'd probably have to get an FSDO ruling on that, but on first glance, you're
probably right. But I think you could probably handle it with creative job
titles ("Vice President for Test Operations"... oh, by the way, can you ride
with me and fly the airplane while I fiddle the knobs?).

So you can't hire someone to build an Experimental/Amateur-Built RV-7A for
your company to use as a test bed. But you can put down the money and buy a
used one, and use *it* for your test bed. In that case, you'd just need an A&P
mechanic to perform the annual condition inspection...which would include
whether your experimental hardware are safe for flight.

Same problem as above? And an additional problem in that the original owner
would be required to make any major modifications?

No, the owner of an Exp/Am-Built aircraft can modify his aircraft. An A&P (or
the original builder with a Repairman Certificate) must approve the mods at the
next annual inspection.

Sounds like you'll have no shortage of material for some future articles,
Ron! 8-)
Thanks again,

You're welcome! And my writing time is already allocated to something else for
the next five months....

Ron Wanttaja

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.

I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to envision a whole new
batch of ambulance chasers (ala James Sokolov) trolling the airwaves with
ads looking for "victims" - "If you or a loved one have been involved in a
Light Sport Aircraft incident please contact the law offices of Weel,
Screwem and Howe..." (Note that I said "incident" because, as we all know,
there's no longer any such thing as an "accident" - or individual
stupidity - there's always *someone* who must be blamed 8-)...

I applaud the few intrepid manufacturers that will brave this. I suspect
that there will be few.

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. In other words, create some rules
for industry "consensus standards" to be applied to add-on products (such as
autopilots) which would allow them to be used in S-LSA aircraft *without*
requiring individual manufacturer approvals. This gets the LSA manufacturer
off the hook in terms of liability - and gives the aftermarket manufacturer
an incentive to proceed. Garmin doesn't need Cessna's approval or
endorsement for installation. However, Acme Audio Panels will need such
approval for *every* installation - and it's not likely to be forthcoming
under the current rules 8-)...

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! (No
pun intended). Remains to be seen and it should be quite interesting over
the next few years to see how this pans out.

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. And
maybe that's the great news for the EAA and all of you builders out there -
looks like this category is going to be around for quite some time - LSA or
not 8-)....!

Rant Off

Bill

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